From: Telander, Jeff <Telander.Jeff@epa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:01 PM

To: Frey, Nathan J.

Cc: Barnett, Keith; Walton, Tom; VanLare, Paula; Jordan, Scott

Subject: Revised Brick/Clay Preamble and RIA

Nathan,

Attached are the current “clean” versions of the preamble and reg text and RIA.

Also attached are “track changes” documents that compare those files with the versions of the

preamble and reg text and RIA that were sent to you on 11-17.

Jeff Telander

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(D243-02)

RTP, NC 27711

919 - 541-5427

919 - 541-5450 (FAX)

Overnight mail address:

US EPA

Mail Code D243-02

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709

<<Preamble and Reg Text 11-19-14.docx>>

<<Brick-Clay comparison of 11-19 version and version sent to OMB on 11-17.docx>>

<<Brick RIA comparison of 11-19 revised version and version sent to OMB on 11-17.docx>>

<<Brick-RIA-11-19-14 revisedJT.docx>>
6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; FRL-9913-58-OAR]

RIN 2060-AP69

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for brick and structural clay products manufacturing 

and NESHAP for clay ceramics manufacturing. The EPA is proposing 

that all major sources in these categories meet maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury, nonmercury metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or particulate 

matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only);

health-based standards for acid gas HAP; and work practice 

standards, where applicable. The proposed rule, which has been 

informed by input from industry and other stakeholders,

including small businesses, would protect air quality and 

promote public health by reducing emissions of HAP listed in 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Page 2 of 425

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [insert 

date 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal 

Register]. A copy of comments on the information collection 

provisions should be submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) on or before [insert date 30 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register].

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing by [INSERT DATE 5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the EPA will hold a public hearing on 

[INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 5:00 p.m. 

[Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Park, NC 27711. If the EPA holds a public hearing, the EPA will 

keep the record of the hearing open for 30 days after completion 

of the hearing to provide an opportunity for submission of 

rebuttal and supplementary information.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket 

ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov: 

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Page 3 of 425

• Email: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing or EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing in the subject line of the message.

• Fax: (202) 566-9744.

• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center

(EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0291 (for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing) or EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 (for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 

20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on 

the information collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA 

WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing or EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received 
Page 4 of 425

will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous 

access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email

address will be automatically captured and included as part of 

the comment that is placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 

the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should not include special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket 

Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Page 5 of 425

Docket. The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking 

under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents in 

the dockets are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov 

or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

Public Hearing. If requested by [INSERT DATE 5 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], we will hold a public 

hearing on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 

5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Research Park, NC 27711. Please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett of 
Page 6 of 425

the Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541-7966; email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov; to 

request a hearing, register to speak at the hearing or to 

inquire as to whether or not a hearing will be held. The last 

day to pre-register in advance to speak at the hearing will be 

[INSERT DATE 12 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the 

hearing at the hearing registration desk, although preferences 

on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you 

require the service of a translator or special accommodations 

such as audio description, we ask that you pre-register for the 

hearing, as we may not be able to arrange such accommodations 

without advance notice. The hearing will provide interested 

parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments 

concerning the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort 

to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because 

this hearing is being held at a U.S. government facility, 

individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to 

show valid picture identification to the security staff in order 

to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID 

Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements 

for entering federal facilities. If your driver’s license is 
Page 7 of 425

issued by Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma or 

the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal building. Acceptable 

alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee 

badges, passports, enhanced driver’s licenses and military 

identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a 

property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. 

Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this 

property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be 

allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the 

building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal 

property for security reasons. The EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to 

the presentations at that time. Written statements and 

supporting information submitted during the comment period will 

be considered with the same weight as oral comments and 

supporting information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim 

transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be 

included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make 

every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on 

the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Again, a 

hearing will not be held on this rulemaking unless requested. A 
Page 8 of 425

hearing needs to be requested by [INSERT DATE 5 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Again, please contact 

Ms. Pamela Garrett of the Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541-7966; email 

address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov to request a hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the 

proposed rule for Brick and Structural Clay Products

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, contact Ms. 

Sharon Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies 

and Program Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 

541-2825; Fax number: (919) 541-5450; Email 

address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. This preamble includes 

several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial 

processes, data inventories and risk modeling. While this list 

may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and 

for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here:

3xRDL representative detection level values multiplied by 
Page 9 of 425

three

ACI activated carbon injection

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model

APCD air pollution control device

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BDL below detection limit

BLD bag leak detection

BSCP brick and structural clay products

CAA Clean Air Act

CalEPA California EPA

CAS Chemical Abstract Services

CBI Confidential Business Information

CDX Central Data Exchange

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Cl2 chlorine

CO carbon monoxide

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter

DLA dry limestone adsorber

DLL detection level limited

DLS/FF dry lime scrubber/fabric filter

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FF fabric filter

FTIR Fourier transform infrared

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot

HAP hazardous air pollutant

HCl hydrogen chloride

HEM-3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 

1.3.1)

HF hydrogen fluoride

Hg mercury

HQ hazard quotient

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

ICR information collection request

IOM Institute of Medicine

IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

K kurtosis statistic

lb/hr pounds per hour

lb/ton pounds per ton

LML lowest measured level
Page 10 of 425

MACT maximum achievable control technology

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter

MMBtu/yr million British thermal units per year

MRL Minimal Risk Level

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment

NEI National Emissions Inventory

NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air 

pollutants

ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

No. number

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAEL no observable adverse effect level

non-Hg non-mercury

NOX nitrogen oxides

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

O2 oxygen

OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PIC products of incomplete combustion

PLC programmable logic controller

PM particulate matter

PM2.5 particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 

micrometers in diameter

RDL representative detection level

REL reference exposure level

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RfC reference concentration

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

S skewness statistic

SBA Small Business Administration

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review

SBE Standard Brick Equivalent

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SEK standard error of kurtosis

SER small entity representative

SES standard error of skewness

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction

TCDD tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

TEQ 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index

tph tons per hour

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Page 11 of 425

μg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

UPL Upper Prediction Limit

VCS voluntary consensus standards

VE visible emissions

WHO World Health Organization

Organization of This Document. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

B. Does this action apply to me?

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed rule?

B. What is the background for startup, shutdown and malfunction?

C. What is the history of the proposed rule?

D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the 

Brick and Structural Clay Products and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source categories?

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

B. What are the affected sources?

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 
Page 12 of 425

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floor for new sources?

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing 

sources?

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

Q. What are the alternate approaches the EPA is considering?

V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Category

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

B. What are the affected sources?

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?
Page 13 of 425

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing 

sources?

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

VII. Summary of the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the cost and emission reduction impacts?

B. What are the secondary impacts?

C. What are the economic impacts?

D. What are the social costs and benefits of the proposed rule?

VIII. Public Participation and Request for Comment

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations
Page 14 of 425

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions 

standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on 

the performance of the MACT. We issued the NESHAP for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products (BSCP) manufacturing and the NESHAP for 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing on May 16, 2003. The two NESHAP were

vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007. To address 

the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, we are proposing

new standards for BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics 

manufacturing.

2. Summary of the Major Provisions

BSCP NESHAP. The EPA is proposing MACT emission limits for 

mercury (Hg) and non-mercury (non-Hg) HAP metals (or PM 

surrogate) and a health-based emission limit for acid gases 

(hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl) and chlorine 

(Cl2)) for BSCP tunnel kilns. In addition, the EPA is proposing 

work practice standards for periodic kilns, for dioxins/furans

from tunnel kilns and for periods of startup and shutdown for 

tunnel kilns. To demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limits, the EPA is proposing initial and repeat 5-year 

performance testing for the regulated pollutants, continuous 
Page 15 of 425

parameter monitoring and daily visible emissions (VE) checks. 

Owners/operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are equipped with a 

fabric filter (FF) (e.g., dry lime injection fabric filter 

(DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF)) have the 

option of demonstrating compliance using a bag leak detection

(BLD) system instead of daily VE checks.

Clay Ceramics NESHAP. The EPA is proposing MACT emission 

limits for Hg, PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and 

dioxins/furans and health-based emission limits for acid gases 

(HF and HCl) for sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile 

roller kilns. In addition, the EPA is proposing MACT emission 

limits for dioxins/furans for ceramic tile spray dryers and 

floor tile press dryers, MACT emission limits for Hg and PM

(surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for ceramic tile glaze lines 

and MACT emission limits for PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals) for sanitaryware glaze spray booths. The EPA is also 

proposing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and for 

periods of startup and shutdown. To demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits, the EPA is proposing initial and repeat 5-

year performance testing for the regulated pollutants,

continuous parameter monitoring and daily VE checks. 

Owners/operators whose affected sources are equipped with a FF

(e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) have the option of demonstrating compliance 

using a BLD system instead of daily VE checks.
Page 16 of 425

3. Costs and Benefits

Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits 

of this proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP), while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes 

the costs of this proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). See section VII of 

this preamble for further discussion of the costs and benefits 

for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the costs for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. See section IX.B of this preamble 

for discussion of the recordkeeping and reporting costs.

Table 1—Summary of the Costs and Benefits of 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart JJJJJ (millions of 2011 dollars)

Requirement Capital cost Annual cost Net benefit

Emission controls $54.9 $18.4 $26 to $99

Emissions testing $0.977 $0.238

Monitoring -- $0.346

Table 2—Summary of the Costs of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KKKKK

(millions of 2011 dollars)

Requirement Capital cost Annual cost

Emission controls $0 $0

Emissions testing $0.102 $0.0249

Monitoring -- $0.0209

B. Does this action apply to me?

The regulated categories and entities potentially affected

by the proposed standards are shown in Table 3 of this preamble:
Page 17 of 425

Table 3—NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by this 

Proposed Action

Category

NAICS 

codea

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities

Industry.... 327120 Brick, structural clay and 

extruded tile manufacturing 

facilities (BSCP NESHAP); and 

ceramic wall and floor tile 

manufacturing facilities (Clay 

Ceramics NESHAP).

327110 Vitreous plumbing fixtures 

(sanitaryware) manufacturing 

facilities (Clay Ceramics 

NESHAP).

Federal government... ... Not affected.

State/local/tribal 

government...

... Not affected.

a North American Industry Classification System

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility, 

company, business, organization, etc., would be regulated by 

this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40 

CFR 63.8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP). If you have any questions regarding the applicability 

of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact either 

the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 

Provisions).
Page 18 of 425

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this action is available on the Internet through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for 

information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, 

the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/brickpg.html. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post 

the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical 

documents at this same Web site.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the 

part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete 

version of the comments that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not 
Page 19 of 425

contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that 

it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not 

be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the following address: 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), 

OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0291 (for BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0290 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP).

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed rule?

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions 

standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on 

the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing 

sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions 

information) or the best performing five sources for source 

categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) 

and (B)). This level of minimum stringency is called the MACT 

floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as 
Page 20 of 425

stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also 

must consider more stringent “beyond-the-floor” control options. 

When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider 

not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, 

but must take into account the associated costs, energy and 

nonair environmental impacts.

B. What is the background for startup, shutdown and malfunction?

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions 

in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions 

of HAP during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or 

limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM 

exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously.

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing 

standards in this rule that apply at all times. In proposing the 

standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup 

and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in sections 
Page 21 of 425

IV.L and VI.L of this preamble, has proposed alternate standards 

for some sources during those periods.

Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. 

Instead they are, by definition sudden, infrequent and not 

reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment. The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to 

be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under 

section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less 

stringent than the level “achieved” by the best controlled 

similar source and for existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” 

by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. 

There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the 

best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has 

recognized, the phrase “average emissions limitation achieved by 

the best performing 12 percent of” sources “says nothing about 

how the performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.” Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 

F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for 
Page 22 of 425

variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part 

of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the 

same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs 

during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 

failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” 

and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such 

events in setting section CAA 112 standards.

Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission 

standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the difficulties associated 

with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and 

duration of various malfunctions that might occur. For these 

reasons, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not 

“reasonably” foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 

F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“The EPA typically has wide 

latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary 

to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision 

to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect 

study.’”) See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 

(D.C. Cir. 1978) (“In the nature of things, no general limit, 

individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate 
Page 23 of 425

all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression 

of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or 

insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter 

for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 

discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.”). 

In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source 

operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 

99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction 

(as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch 

fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that 

would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-

percent control to zero control until the control device was 

repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 

100 times higher than during normal operations, and the 

emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the 

annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this 

example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to 

standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less 

stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA 

section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to 
Page 24 of 425

malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute.

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 112 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The 

EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead 

“caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.” 40 

CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).

If the EPA determines in a particular case that enforcement 

action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 

warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal district court will determine 

what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for 

citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in 

an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and 

determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.

In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in 

particular, section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices 
Page 25 of 425

that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial 

procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully 

recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts 

to comply and can accommodate those situations.

C. What is the history of the proposed rule?

Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA was originally 

required to promulgate standards for the BSCP Manufacturing and 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories by November 2000. 

The agency initially promulgated standards for these categories 

in 2003. See 68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003). Those standards were 

challenged and subsequently vacated by the Court of appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v.

EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club 

filed suit in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit under CAA section 304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a 

continuing mandatory duty to promulgate standards for these 

categories under CAA section 112 based on the 2000 deadline 

under CAA section 112(c)(5). The EPA challenged that claim in a 

motion to dismiss, arguing that the mandatory duty to act by the 

2000 deadline was satisfied by the 2003 rule and that the 2007 

vacatur of the 2003 rule did not recreate the statutory duty to 

act by the 2000 deadline. Ultimately, the District Court found 

that the vacatur of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty 

to set standards by 2000 and held that Sierra Club’s claims 
Page 26 of 425

could continue. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.Supp.2d 300 

(D.D.C. 2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then negotiated a consent 

decree to settle the litigation and establish proposal and 

promulgation deadlines for establishing standards for these 

categories.

Following the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule, the EPA began 

efforts to collect additional data to support new standards for 

the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. The EPA conducted an 

initial information collection effort in 2008 to update 

information on the inventory of affected units, hereafter 

referred to as “the 2008 EPA survey.” The EPA conducted a second 

information collection effort in 2010 to obtain additional 

emissions data and information on each facility’s SSM 

procedures, hereafter referred to as “the 2010 EPA survey.” The 

information collected as part of these surveys and not claimed 

as CBI by respondents is available in Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. In addition, the dockets A–

99–30 and OAR-2002-0054 are incorporated by reference for BSCP.

The dockets A-2000-48, OAR-2002-0055 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424 

are incorporated by reference for clay ceramics.
Page 27 of 425

D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the 

Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing source categories?

The proposed rule protects air quality and promotes the 

public health by reducing emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP and 

clay ceramics kilns. Emissions data collected during development 

of the proposed rule shows that acid gases such as HF, HCl and 

Cl2 represent the predominant HAP emitted by BSCP and clay 

ceramics kilns, accounting for 99.3 percent of the total HAP 

emissions. These kilns also emit lesser amounts of other HAP 

compounds such as HAP metals and dioxins/furans, accounting for 

about 0.7 percent of total HAP emissions. The HAP metals emitted 

include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel and selenium. Exposure to these 

HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can 

be associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These 

adverse health effects could include chronic health disorders 

(e.g., irritation of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, effects 

on the central nervous system and damage to the kidneys) and

acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and congestion, 

alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting and effects on 

the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified two 

of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and chromium VI) and 
Page 28 of 425

four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, 

dioxins/furans and nickel).

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category

This section summarizes the requirements for the BSCP 

Manufacturing source category proposed in today’s action. 

Section IV of this preamble provides our rationale for the 

proposed requirements.

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

Today’s proposed rule for BSCP Manufacturing applies to 

BSCP manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of 

a major source of HAP emissions. The BSCP Manufacturing source 

category includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face 

brick, structural brick, brick pavers and other brick); clay 

pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other 

extruded, dimensional clay products.

B. What are the affected sources?

The affected sources, which are the portions of each source 

in the category for which we are setting standards, are: (1) all 

tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility; and (2) each 

periodic kiln. For purposes of this proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule, tunnel kilns are defined to include any type of continuous 

kiln used at BSCP manufacturing facilities, including roller 

kilns.
Page 29 of 425

Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas or other fuels, 

including sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of 

a sawdust dryer because sawdust typically is purchased wet and 

needs to be dried before it can be used as fuel. Consequently, 

some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns have two process streams, 

including: (1) a process stream that exhausts directly to the

atmosphere or to an APCD and (2) a process stream in which the 

kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to 

dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere. Both process 

streams are subject to the requirements of today’s proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule.

The following BSCP process units are not subject to the 

requirements of today’s proposed rule: (1) kilns that are used 

exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products and 

(2) dryers. See section IV.A of this preamble for information on 

why these sources are not subject to the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule.

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule applies to owners or 

operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the 

requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major 

source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of 

stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under 

common control that emits or has the potential to emit,
Page 30 of 425

considering controls, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP 

or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

1. Emission Limitations

We are proposing a choice of emission limits for total nonHg HAP metals for all new and existing tunnel kilns. The options 

include a total non-Hg HAP metals limit (pounds per hour 

(lb/hr)) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for non-Hg 

HAP metals (pounds per ton (lb/ton) or grains per dry standard 

cubic foot (gr/dscf) at 7 percent oxygen (O2)). We are also 

proposing a choice of emission limits for Hg (lb/ton, lb/hr or 

micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) at 7 percent 

O2) for new and existing tunnel kilns in two subcategories based 

on kiln size. In this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, a large 

tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a 

design capacity of 10 tons per hour (tph) or greater and a small 

tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a 

design capacity of less than 10 tph. We are also proposing an 

emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all existing and new 

tunnel kilns at the facility to reduce the acid gases HF, HCl 

and Cl2. The proposed emission limits for Hg and non-Hg HAP 

metals are presented in Table 4 of this preamble.
Page 31 of 425

Table 4—Proposed Total Non-Mercury HAP Metals and Mercury 

Emission Limits for Brick and Structural Clay Products Tunnel 

Kilns

Subcategory Acid gases

Total non-Hg HAP 

metals Hg

Limits for existing sources

Large tunnel kilns

(≥ 10 tph)

-- -- 2.2 E-05 lb/ton OR 

2.7 E-04 lb/hr OR 

29 μg/dscm at 7-

percent O2 for 

each existing 

large tunnel kiln 

at facility

Small tunnel kilns

(< 10 tph)

-- -- 2.0 E-04 lb/ton OR 

0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 

μg/dscm at 7-

percent O2 for 

each existing 

small tunnel kiln 

at facility

All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HClequivalent for 

collection of 

all existing 

tunnel kilns at 

facility

0.16 lb/ton PM OR 

0.040 gr/dscf PM 

at 7 percent O2

OR 0.023 lb/hr 

non-Hg HAP metals 

for each existing 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

--

Limits for new sources

Large tunnel kilns

(≥ 10 tph)

-- -- 2.0 E-05 lb/ton OR 

2.4 E-04 lb/hr OR 

13 μg/dscm at 7-

percent O2 for 

each new large 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

Small tunnel kilns

(< 10 tph)

-- -- 2.0 E-04 lb/ton OR 

0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 

μg/dscm at 7-

percent O2 for 

each new small 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HClequivalent for 

collection of 

all new tunnel 

kilns at 

facility

0.022 lb/ton PM 

OR 0.0066 gr/dscf 

PM at 7-percent

O2 OR 0.0032

lb/hr non-Hg HAP 

metals for each 

new tunnel kiln 

at facility

--
Page 32 of 425

2. Work Practice Standards

We are proposing work practice standards for BSCP periodic 

kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits. The work practice 

standards would require developing and using a designed firing 

time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the 

periodic kiln; labeling each periodic kiln with the maximum load 

(in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing 

cycle; documenting the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each 

load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load;

developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln 

that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and 

developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, 

including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance 

procedures of the periodic kilns.

We are also proposing work practice standards for BSCP 

tunnel kilns in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits. The work 

practice standards would require maintaining and inspecting the 

burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable);

tuning the specific burner type to optimize combustion; keeping 

records of each burner tune-up; and submitting a report for each 

tune-up conducted.
Page 33 of 425

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section 

II.B of this preamble. Standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown are discussed in this section.

We are proposing the work practice standards described in 

this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP 

tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would 

be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F). In addition, no bricks or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. 

For shutdown, the owner or operator would be required to vent 

the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln 

exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no bricks

or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust 

temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being 

vented through the APCD. When the kiln exhaust is being vented 

through the APCD, the owner or operator would be required to 

comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements 

described in section III.G of this preamble.

We are proposing work practice standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as 

well. For startup, no bricks or other product may be introduced 
Page 34 of 425

to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. 

For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be put into the 

kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F.

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

We are proposing that owners or operators of all affected 

sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial 

performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate 

initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A 

performance test would have to be conducted before renewing the 

facility’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 

five years following the initial performance test, as well as 

when an operating limit parameter value is being revised.

Under today’s proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, the owner 

or operator would have to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg 

and PM (or non-Hg HAP metals). We are proposing that the owner 

or operator measure HF, HCl and Cl2 using one of the following 

methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 

Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic 

Method,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8;

• EPA Method 26, “Determination of Hydrogen Chloride 

Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8, when no acid particulate (e.g., HF, HCl or Cl2

dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled 

by a wet scrubber) is present;

• EPA Method 320, “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and 

Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR” 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A, provided the test follows the analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless the owner or 
Page 35 of 425

operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking 

procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

Following the performance test, the owner or operator would 

calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using proposed 

Equation 2 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(i). If there are multiple 

kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would sum the HClequivalent for each kiln using proposed Equation 3 in 40 CFR 

63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent and 

compare this value to the proposed limitation.

If the owner or operator chooses to comply with one of the 

two PM emission limits, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator measure PM emissions using one of the following 

methods:

• EPA Method 5, “Determination of Particulate Emissions from 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;

• EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals Emissions From 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, where 

the test results would report the weight of the PM on the

filter as PM filterable; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

If the owner or operator chooses to comply with the non-Hg 

HAP metals emission limit instead of one of the PM emission 

limits, the owner or operator would measure non-Hg HAP metals 

emissions using EPA Method 29 cited above or any other 

alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator 
Page 36 of 425

under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The owner or 

operator may also use Method 29 or any other approved 

alternative method to measure Hg emissions.

The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance 

requirements that we are proposing. Prior to the initial 

performance test, the owner or operator would need to install 

the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) equipment to 

be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating 

limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator would use 

the CPMS to establish site-specific operating parameter values 

that represent the operating limits.

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the 

APCD is free-flowing at all times during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of 

fired product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed 

rate varies, the owner or operator would be required to 

determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The 

average of the three test runs establishes the minimum sitespecific feed rate operating limit. If there are different 

average feed rate values during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and 

HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values becomes the

site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present, the 

owner or operator would need to submit analyses and supporting 
Page 37 of 425

documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for BLD systems.

For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or 

DLS) and a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator submit analyses and supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications 

for BLD systems.

For a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), we are proposing that 

the owner or operator continuously measure the pressure drop 

across the DLA during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and 

determine the 3-hour block average pressure drop. The average of 

the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 

pressure drop operating limit. Alternatively, the owner or 

operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper 

position at least once every 15 minutes during the performance 

test. The owner or operator also would need to maintain an 

adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage 

bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA at all times. In 

addition, the owner or operator would need to establish the

limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) 1 

week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder 

setting for the 1-week period that precedes the performance test 

and during the performance test. Finally, the owner or operator
Page 38 of 425

would need to document the source and grade of the limestone 

used during the performance test.

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during 

the PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance test, the scrubber liquid 

pH and chemical addition rate (if applicable) during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate 

during both the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator

would need to determine and record the average values for the 

three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The average 

of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 

pressure drop, liquid pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addition 

rate operating limits. If different average wet scrubber liquid 

flow rate values are measured during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

and HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values become 

the site-specific operating limit.

For an activated carbon injection (ACI) system, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator measure the activated 

carbon flow rate during the Hg performance test and determine 

the 3-hour block average flow rate. The average of the three 

test runs establishes the minimum site-specific activated carbon 

flow rate operating limit.
Page 39 of 425

For a source with no APCD installed, we are proposing that 

the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HClequivalent using proposed Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)(1)(i). 

The owner or operator would use the results from the performance 

test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process 

rate. For example, if the design capacity of the kiln is 10 tph 

and the production rate during the performance test was 9 tph, 

then the test results represent 90 percent of the maximum 

potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, 

the owner or operator would need to sum the maximum potential 

HCl-equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the proposed 

health-based emission limitation for acid gases. If the total 

facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the 

proposed limitation, we are proposing that the owner or operator

determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the 

proposed limitation. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or 

operator would need to determine one or more combinations of 

maximum process rates that would result in a total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the 

proposed limitation. The maximum process rate(s) would become 

the operating limit(s) for process rate.
Page 40 of 425

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

Today’s BSCP manufacturing rule proposes that the owner or 

operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 

limitation that applies. The owner or operator would have to 

follow the requirements in the operation, maintenance and 

monitoring (OM&M) plan and document conformance with the OM&M 

plan. The owner or operator would need to operate a CPMS to 

monitor the operating parameters established during the initial 

performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The 

CPMS would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes, 

including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or 

at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per 

hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or 

operator would have to operate the CPMS at all times when the 

process is operating. The owner or operator would also have to 

conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS (including inspections, 

calibrations and validation checks) and maintain an inventory of 

necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the 

recorded readings, the owner or operator would need to calculate 

and record the 3-hour block average values of each operating 

parameter. To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging 

period, the owner or operator would need to have at least 75 

percent of the recorded readings for that period.
Page 41 of 425

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) 

health-based emission limit by maintaining free-flowing lime in 

the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is 

not flowing freely, according to load cell output, carrier

gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement 

system or other system, the owner or operator would have to

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also have to maintain 

the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or 

above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test and record the feeder setting once each shift.

The proposed rule would provide the option to use either a 

BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the 

PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit.

For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a 

BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also need to operate 

and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more 

than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction, 

the owner or operator would not count any alarm time if 

inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is 
Page 42 of 425

required. If corrective action is required, the owner or 

operator must count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour. If 

corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, 

the owner or operator must count as alarm time the actual amount 

of time taken to initiate corrective action.

For the option of monitoring VE, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in 

accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, “Visual 

Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and 

Smoke Emissions from Flares,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

During the VE observations, the kiln would need to be operating 

under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner or 

operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective 

actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 

consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may 

decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to 

weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly 

test, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan and the 

owner or operator would need to resume EPA Method 22 testing of 

that kiln stack on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30 

consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner or operator may 

again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a 

weekly basis.
Page 43 of 425

For a stand-alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission 

limit.

For a DLA, we are proposing that the owner or operator

demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) healthbased emission limit by collecting and recording data 

documenting the DLA pressure drop and reducing the data to 3-

hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to 

maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-

hour block period at or above the average pressure drop 

established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. 

Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor 

the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes 

during normal kiln operation. Any period in which the bypass 

damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA 

would trigger corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator also would need to verify that the limestone 

hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA 

contain an adequate amount of limestone by performing a daily 

visual check of the limestone hopper and the storage bin. A 

daily visual check could include one of the following: (1) 

conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a visual 

access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) 
Page 44 of 425

installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed 

to a video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that 

load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need 

for additional limestone. If the hopper or storage bin does not 

contain adequate limestone, the owner or operator would have to 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also would have to record 

the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired 

product basis) to verify that the feeder setting is being 

maintained at or above the level established during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. The owner or operator also would 

need to use the same grade of limestone from the same source as 

was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and maintain 

records of the source and type of limestone. Finally, the owner 

or operator would need to monitor VE, as described in the 

previous paragraph.

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for 

scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow 

rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the 

minimum values established during the applicable performance 

test. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber pressure 

drop at or above the minimum value established during the 

PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance test would demonstrate 
Page 45 of 425

compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. 

Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid pH and 

chemical (e.g., lime, caustic) addition rate at or above the 

minimum values established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test 

would demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) 

health-based emission limit. Maintaining the 3-hour block 

average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest 

minimum value established during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance tests would demonstrate compliance with 

all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is 

in proper working order.

For an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg emission limit by 

continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and 

maintaining it at or above the operating limit established 

during the Hg performance test.

For sources with no APCD, we are proposing that the owner 

or operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. In 

addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the proposed 

health-based emission limitation for acid gases, then we are 

proposing that the owner or operator collect and record data 

documenting the process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to 
Page 46 of 425

3-hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to

maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate 

operating limit(s) that would enable the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent to remain at or below the proposed 

limitation.

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

All new and existing sources would be required to comply 

with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 

63, subpart A), which are identified in proposed Table 8 of 40 

CFR part 64, subpart JJJJJ. The General Provisions include 

specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and 

reporting.

Each owner or operator would be required to submit a 

notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 

63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule would require the owner or operator to 

include in the notification of compliance status report 

certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual 

compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart 

A, would also be required for each semiannual reporting period.

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require records 

to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work 

practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are 
Page 47 of 425

specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 

and are identified in proposed Table 8 of subpart JJJJJ.

Specifically, we are proposing that the owner or operator

keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.

• Records of performance tests.

• Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

• Continuous monitoring data as required in this proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule.

• Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.

• Records of each instance in which the owner or operator did 

not meet each emission limit (i.e., deviations from 

operating limits).

• Records of production rates.

• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing 

procedures.

• Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

• Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting 

conformance.

• Logs of the information required to document compliance 

with the periodic kiln work practice standard.

• Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the 

dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.

• Logs of the information required to document compliance 

with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.

• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action 

taken.

We are also proposing that the owner or operator submit the 

following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.

• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after 

the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.

• Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or 

other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days 
Page 48 of 425

before the performance test and/or other compliance 

demonstration is scheduled.

• Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days 

following completion of a compliance demonstration that 

includes a performance test.

• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days 

following completion of a compliance demonstration that 

does not include a performance test (i.e., compliance 

demonstrations for the work practice standards).

• Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of the 

most recent burner tune-up conducted to comply with the 

dioxin/furan work practice standard and a report of each 

malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the corrective 

action taken.

• Results of each performance test within 60 days of 

completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided 

software for data collected using supported test methods.

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to 

increase the ease and efficiency of performance test data 

submittal while improving data accessibility. Specifically, the 

EPA is proposing that owners and operators of BSCP manufacturing 

facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test 

reports by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using 

EPA-provided software. The direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer is accomplished through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CDX is the EPA’s portal for 

submittal of electronic data. The EPA-provided software is 

called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which generates 

electronic reports of performance tests and evaluations. The ERT 
Page 49 of 425

report package will be submitted using the CEDRI. The submitted 

report package will be stored in the CDX archive (the official 

copy of record) and the EPA’s public database called WebFIRE. 

All stakeholders will have access to all reports and data in 

WebFIRE via the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval link 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSub

mission). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can 

be found on the ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), and CEDRI can be 

accessed through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx).

The proposal to submit performance test data electronically 

to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by the ERT at the time of 

the test. The ERT supports most of the commonly used EPA 

reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 

supported by the ERT is available on the ERT Web site.

We believe that the electronic submittal of reports 

increases the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, 

is in keeping with current trends in data availability and may 

ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. 

Electronic reporting can eliminate paper-based, manual 

processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data 

entry, eliminating redundancies and providing data quickly and 
Page 50 of 425

accurately to the affected sources, air agencies, the EPA and 

the public.

By making data readily available, electronic reporting 

increases the amount of data that can be used for the 

development of emission factors. The EPA has received feedback 

from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA’s emission 

factors are outdated or not representative of a particular 

industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the 

emission factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we 

also recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of 

equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel 

changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and 

it is important for emission factors to be updated to keep up 

with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emission 

factor development improvements that include procedures to 

incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be 

submitted electronically. 

Emission factors are used in the development of emissions 

inventories, and improved emission factors means that the 

quality of these inventories will be improved more quickly than 

they would under the current paper reporting requirements. 

Emissions inventories are used for tracking emission trends and 

identifying potential sources of emissions for reduction. For 

example, the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) uses 
Page 51 of 425

the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) in its screening 

level assessments to characterize the nationwide chronic cancer 

risk estimates and noncancer hazards from inhaling air toxics. 

The NATA is used as a screening tool for air agencies to 

prioritize pollutants, emission sources and locations of 

interest for further study to gain a better understanding of 

risks. Therefore, improving the quality of these inventories is 

an on-going goal for the agency and a benefit to the public, air 

agencies and the regulated community. 

Additionally, the EPA, the regulated community and the 

public may benefit from electronic reporting when the EPA 

conducts its CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. 

Because we will already have access to these reports, our 

ability to do comprehensive reviews will be increased and 

achieved within a shorter period of time. Under an electronic 

reporting system, the EPA would have performance test data in 

hand; thus, it is possible that fewer or less substantial 

information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with 

prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews may 

be needed. This may result in a decrease in the need for 

industry staff time to respond to data collection requests. It 

may also allow the EPA to conduct these required reviews more 

quickly, as we will not have to include the ICR collection time 

in the process. While the regulated community may benefit from 
Page 52 of 425

reduced ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency’s 

ability to conduct these required reviews more quickly.

Electronic reporting could minimize submission of 

unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities 

report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to 

rely on the EPA’s electronic reporting system to view report 

submissions. Where air agencies continue to require a paper copy 

of these reports and will accept a hard copy of the electronic 

report, facilities will have the option to print paper copies of 

the electronic reporting forms to submit to the air agencies, 

thus minimizing the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. 

Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with 

retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by replacing 

those records with electronic records of electronically 

submitted data and reports.

There are benefits of information that is submitted in a 

standardized format. Standardizing the reporting format will 

require the reporting of specific data elements, thereby helping 

to ensure completeness of the data and allowing for accurate 

assessment of data quality. Additionally, imbedded quality 

assurance checks will perform some of the required method 

calculations, reducing errors in test reports. And because the 

system is entirely electronic, it eliminates transcription 

errors in moving data from paper reports to data systems for 
Page 53 of 425

analysis. These quality assurance checks and procedures will 

increase the accuracy of test report data, improve the overall 

quality of test data, and lead to more accurate emission factors 

and higher quality emissions inventories. These features benefit 

all users of the data.

Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and 

automated review of the electronically submitted data. For 

example, because the performance test data would be readilyavailable in a standard electronic format, air agencies would be 

able to review reports and data electronically rather than 

having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. 

Having reports and associated data in electronic format will 

facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, 

as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet 

format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the 

reported data being accessible to them through the EPA’s 

electronic reporting system whenever they want or need access 

(as long as they have access to the Internet). The ability to 

access and review information electronically will assist air 

agencies in more quickly determining compliance with emission 

standards. This benefits both air agencies and the general 

public. 

The general public would also benefit from electronic 

reporting of emissions data because the data would be available 
Page 54 of 425

for viewing sooner and would be easier for the public to access. 

The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data is

easily accessible to the public and provides a user-friendly 

interface that any stakeholder could access.

In summary, in addition to supporting regulation 

development, control strategy development and other air 

pollution control activities, having an electronic database 

populated with performance test data would save industry, air

agencies and the EPA significant time, money and effort while 

also improving the quality of emission inventories and air 

quality regulations.

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural

Clay Products Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

In the BSCP manufacturing industry, the primary sources of 

HAP emissions are kilns, including tunnel kilns and periodic 

kilns. The HAP emitted from BSCP kilns include HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg 

and other non-Hg HAP metals. At one time, dryers were a 

potential source of HF, HCl, Cl2 and non-Hg HAP metals emissions, 

but the design and operation of kilns and dryers has changed 

such that emissions released from the heating of the raw 

materials and the products of combustion no longer pass from the 

kiln into the dryer. In addition, the 2010 EPA survey requested 
Page 55 of 425

that owners/operators of specific dryers test for 

dioxins/furans, and none of the tests found detectable levels of 

dioxins/furans. See the technical memorandum “Determination of 

“Non-Detect” Test Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. Other process units at BSCP 

manufacturing facilities (e.g., raw material processing and 

handling) have not been found to emit measurable quantities of 

HAP. For this reason, the proposed rule covers existing and new 

kilns at major source BSCP manufacturing facilities which meet 

the applicability criteria in the rule.

BSCP kilns that do not meet the applicability criteria 

include kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products. Nearly all of the acid gas emissions 

from the firing of BSCP products are released during the initial 

firing, so kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products emit little to no HF, HCl or Cl2.

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

For Hg and total non-Hg HAP metals, this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule provides owners and operators of regulated 

sources with a choice between a numerical emission rate limit as 

a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of bricks produced and a 

numerical emission limit in units of concentration. The 

selection of numerical emission rate limits and numerical 

emission limits as the format for this proposed BSCP 
Page 56 of 425

manufacturing rule provides flexibility for the regulated 

community by allowing a regulated source to choose any control 

technology or technique to meet the emission limits, rather than 

requiring each unit to use a prescribed control method that may 

not be appropriate in each case. In addition, the selection of 

numerical emission rate limits as mass of pollutant emitted per 

ton of bricks produced ensures that differences in kiln sizes or 

production rates do not affect the level of emissions control 

achieved.

The PM limits are proposed as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals. The same control techniques that would be used to 

control PM will control non-Hg HAP metals. Particulate matter 

was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific 

individual HAP metals because all kilns do not emit the same 

type and amount of HAP metals due to differences in raw 

materials and fuels used to fire the kilns. However, most kilns 

generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of 

HAP metals. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the 

cost of performance testing needed to comply with numerous 

standards for individual non-Hg HAP metals. We have used PM as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals NESHAP for other rules with 

similar processes (e.g., Portland Cement Manufacturing, Lime 

Manufacturing).
Page 57 of 425

Although we continue to believe that PM is a good surrogate 

for non-Hg HAP metals and that complying with a PM emission 

limit rather than non-Hg HAP metals limits will be less costly 

for most kilns, we understand that some owners and operators may 

find that meeting a total non-Hg HAP metals limit is less costly 

than meeting a PM limit. To provide that flexibility, we have 

developed an alternative compliance option of a numerical 

emission rate limit for total non-Hg HAP metals as a mass of 

pollutant emitted per hour. The ability to comply with this 

limit would provide additional flexibility for small tunnel 

kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM 

emissions and would achieve equivalent emission reductions to 

the options to limit PM.

For acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl2), this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule includes a health-based emission limit as a 

mass of HCl-equivalent emitted per hour. Further discussion 

about the development of the health-based standard for the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is provided in section IV.J of 

this preamble.

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule includes work 

practices for dioxins/furans from tunnel kilns. As described in 

more detail in section IV.K.2 of this preamble, 83 percent of 

the dioxin/furan data collected during the ICR process were 

below the detection level and it is not practicable due to 
Page 58 of 425

technological and economic limitations to apply measurement 

methodology to test for compliance with a numerical limit.

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes work 

practices for periodic kilns. As described in more detail in 

section IV.K.1 of this preamble, technological and economic 

limitations make it impracticable to measure compliance with 

numerical emission limits for BSCP periodic kilns.

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate 

emission standards for either categories or subcategories of 

sources. Through subcategorization, we are able to define 

subsets of similar emission sources within a source category if 

differences in emissions characteristics, processes or

opportunities for pollution prevention exist within the source 

category. Upon initial consideration of the available 

information on the BSCP manufacturing industry, we determined 

that separate subcategories for periodic kilns and tunnel kilns 

were warranted for several reasons. First, periodic kilns are 

smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an hourly 

basis, as well as accounting for only about 4 percent of total 

BSCP industry production). Second, periodic kilns are operated 

in batch cycles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously.

Third, periodic kilns are typically operated at higher 

temperatures than tunnel kilns and products are typically heated 
Page 59 of 425

in the kiln for longer periods than products fired in tunnel 

kilns, resulting in higher energy requirements. As noted in 

section IV.K.1 of this preamble, we have determined that it is 

technologically and economically infeasible to test periodic 

kilns, thereby ruling out a quantitative analysis of how these 

differences impact emissions. However, a qualitative comparison 

can be made, in that smaller kilns operated periodically (i.e., 

periodic kilns) would be expected to have lower emissions over 

time compared to the larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns.

We then examined the potential for additional subcategories 

for tunnel kilns, including subcategorization based on kiln fuel 

and kiln size. Based on the available emissions test data, we 

could not discern differences in emissions based on fuel type. 

For that reason, we have not subcategorized by fuel type. We 

request comment, including additional data if appropriate, on 

whether we should subcategorize by fuel type. In particular, we 

request comment on whether we should create a subcategory for 

kilns fired with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

We then considered subcategorization of tunnel kilns based 

on kiln size. There are several differences between the design, 

operation and efficiency of larger kilns and smaller kilns. In 

particular, many small kilns are the older, less efficient kilns 

in the industry and newer kilns can be constructed to be larger 

and more efficient due to advances in design. Smaller, older 
Page 60 of 425

kilns were constructed with large amounts of heavy refractory 

brick and are narrow and tall in shape, with high arched 

ceilings. Larger, newer kilns can be constructed with more 

efficient refractories and can include features such as fiber 

linings and insulating brick, resulting in a wider kiln with 

lower ceilings. In addition, the burners in a small kiln are 

generally less efficient and are located near the bottom of the 

kiln, where some of the heat is absorbed by the cars that move 

the bricks through the kiln rather than by the bricks 

themselves. In a large kiln, the burners are more efficient and 

are often located at the top of the kiln, where they can fire 

downward to the product. Combined with the kiln size and shape 

differences, the difference in burner efficiency and location 

results in a more even temperature distribution throughout the 

kiln and product in a large kiln than in a small kiln.

To assess whether these design and operation differences 

have an effect on emissions and provide support for defining 

size subcategories in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, we 

conducted a set of statistical analyses on the emissions 

dataset. In the vacated rule, “small kilns” were defined as 

kilns with a design capacity less than 10 tph and “large kilns” 

were defined as kilns with a design capacity of 10 tph or 

greater. The main goal of the statistical analyses was to 

determine if these definitions are supported by our current 
Page 61 of 425

dataset. Because we have Cl2, Hg and non-Hg HAP metals data for 

only about 10 percent of the kilns in the industry, we conducted 

the series analyses based on the HF, HCl and PM datasets, which 

are available for a much larger percentage of the kilns in the 

industry, providing more representative kiln datasets for the 

analyses.

We found that the median of the emissions data from kilns 

in the large kiln dataset was statistically different than the 

median of the emissions data from kilns in the small kiln 

dataset for all three pollutants. Also, based on a logistic 

model, we found high association between emissions and the 

hypothesized design capacity classification. Finally, we 

conducted a cluster analysis and considered all three pollutants 

together to investigate whether the combined dataset supported 

changing the definitions of small and large kilns. This cluster 

analysis supported the subcategory definitions from the vacated 

rule. (For more information on the statistical analyses, see 

“Analysis of Potential Subcategories for BSCP Tunnel Kilns” in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.)

Based on the above information and analyses, we determined 

that differences in design and emissions exist between large (10 

tph or greater) and small (less than 10 tph) kilns. Therefore, 

we are proposing to exercise our discretion to subcategorize 

based on kiln size for these kilns’ emissions of Hg. As 
Page 62 of 425

discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, we are not proposing 

to exercise our discretion to subcategorize for other 

pollutants.

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

All standards established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) 

must reflect MACT, the maximum degree of reduction in emissions 

of air pollutants that the Administrator, taking into 

consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reductions 

and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements, determined is achievable for each category.

For existing sources, MACT cannot be less stringent than 

the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 

12 percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories 

with 30 or more sources or the best performing five sources for 

subcategories with less than 30 sources. This requirement 

constitutes the MACT floor for existing sources. The CAA 

specifies that MACT for new sources shall not be less stringent 

than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 

best controlled similar source. This minimum level of stringency 

is the MACT floor for new units.

The EPA may not consider costs or other impacts in 

determining the MACT floor. However, the EPA must consider cost, 

nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
Page 63 of 425

requirements in connection with any standards that are more 

stringent than the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor controls).

The remainder of this section describes the development of 

the pool of data used to calculate the MACT floors for Hg and PM

(as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals). As noted in section IV.J

of this preamble, health-based emissions standards are being 

proposed for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2 under the provisions 

of CAA section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not prepared 

a MACT floor analysis for these pollutants.

1. Mercury

In our MACT floor analysis for Hg, we separated the sources 

into large kiln and small kiln subcategories, as described in 

section IV.C of this preamble. For each subcategory, we ranked 

the sources based on the data in terms of lb/ton (as described 

in section IV.E of this preamble) and identified the best 

performing 12 percent of sources. Once we identified the best 

performing kilns, we then calculated the MACT floor in units of 

lb/ton for each subcategory as described in section IV.E of this 

preamble. We also calculated the MACT floor in lb/hr and 

concentration units (μg/dscm at 7-percent O2) for each 

subcategory, based on the concentration emissions data for the 

same top 12 percent (best performing) sources as the lb/ton 

floor. This is further discussed in section IV.E of this 

preamble and in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 
Page 64 of 425

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

2. Total Non-Hg HAP Metals

We developed MACT floors for PM as a surrogate for total 

non-Hg HAP metals. The available PM data show that kilns 

controlled with a FF-based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) as a group 

are better performers than kilns without FF-based controls. When 

we divided the kilns into two groups, one group consisting of 

kilns with a FF-based APCD and the other group consisting of 

uncontrolled kilns and kilns with a different type of APCD, we 

found that the test data for kilns with FF-based APCD showed 

they were consistently good performers, while the test data for 

kilns without a FF-based APCD varied widely. The worst 

performing kiln with a FF-based APCD performs better than the 

average kiln in the group without a FF-based APCD. The best

performing 75 percent of the kilns with a FF-based APCD showed 

better performance than 80 percent of the kilns without a FFbased APCD. We also conducted a t-test on the averages of the 

two groups and we found that the average of the test data for 

kilns with FF-based APCD was statistically different from the 

average of the test data for kilns without a FF-based APCD (with 

99-percent confidence). See the technical memorandum “Analysis 

of Potential Subcategories in the BSCP Source Category” in

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
Page 65 of 425

One consequence of the wide variability in emissions from 

kilns without a FF-based APCD is that there are a few 

uncontrolled kilns and kilns controlled with DLA with lower 

lb/ton emissions than some of the kilns controlled with a FFbased APCD. We understand that that the emissions from kilns 

with FF-based APCD will be consistently low over time, based on 

the design of these APCD and years of experience with these 

devices. On the other hand, we do not have multiple tests over 

time that would enable us to say the same for kilns that have a 

different type of APCD (e.g., DLA) or are uncontrolled. Thus, we 

are requesting information and analysis as to whether the data 

showing low emissions from some kilns without a FF-based APCD 

are reliable.1

As of January 1, 2014, there were 225 operating BSCP tunnel 

kilns in the industry (including kilns at major sources and 

synthetic area sources); the top 12 percent of the kilns in the 

industry would be represented by the 27 best performing kilns. 

Therefore, we ranked the kilns with a FF-based APCD in terms of 

lb/ton (as described in section IV.E of this preamble) and 

identified the 27 best performing sources from that group. Once 

 1 Further, as discussed in section IV.P.1 of this preamble, the EPA is also 

considering setting emission limits for PM and total non-Hg HAP metals based 

on the top 12 percent of the data available in each of the kiln size 

subcategories. The reliability of the data showing low emissions from some 

kilns without a FF-based APCD is a key factor in the EPA’s determination of 

which approach is appropriate.
Page 66 of 425

we identified the best performing kilns, we then calculated the 

MACT floor in units of lb/ton as described in section IV.E of 

this preamble. We also calculated the MACT floor in 

concentration units (gr/dscf at 7-percent O2), based on the 

concentration emissions data for the same top 12 percent (best

performing) sources as the lb/ton floor. As another alternative, 

we calculated an equivalent lb/hr total non-Hg HAP metals limit 

using the average non-Hg HAP metals content of the PM emissions 

and the average process rates of the best performing kilns. This 

limit would provide additional compliance flexibility for small 

tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the 

PM emissions. The alternatives are further discussed in section 

IV.E of this preamble and in the technical memorandum “Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick 

and Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291.

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

The EPA must consider available emissions information to 

determine the MACT floors. The EPA must exercise its judgment, 

based on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available 

data, to determine the level of emissions control that has been 

achieved by the best performing sources under variable 

conditions. The United States Court of Appeals for the District 
Page 67 of 425

of Columbia Circuit has recognized that the EPA may consider 

variability in estimating the degree of emission reduction 

achieved by best performing sources and in setting MACT 

floors. See Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 

1241–42 (DC Cir. 2004) (holding EPA may consider emission 

variability in estimating performance achieved by best

performing sources and may set the floor at level that best

performing source can expect to meet “every day and under all 

operating conditions”).

As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, the EPA 

established the MACT floors for PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg 

HAP metals) for BSCP kilns based on sources representing 12 

percent of the number of sources in the category. For Hg emitted 

from each of the kiln subcategories, the EPA established the 

MACT floors based on sources representing 12 percent of the 

sources for which we had emissions information. The MACT floor 

limitations for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP 

metals) were calculated based on the performance of the best

performing sources in each of the subcategories. The best

performing sources were determined by ranking each source’s 

average emission value from lowest to highest. 

Once the best performing sources in the MACT floor pools 

were identified, the MACT floors were calculated using an Upper 

Prediction Limit (UPL). The UPL takes into consideration the 
Page 68 of 425

average performance of the units in the MACT floor pool and the 

variability of the test runs during the testing conditions. For 

more information regarding the general use of the UPL and why it 

is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see the memorandum 

“Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors”

in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

The UPL represents the value which one can expect the mean 

of a specified number of future observations (e.g., 3-run 

average) to fall below for the specified level of confidence, 

based upon the results of an independent sample from the same 

population. A prediction interval for a future observation or an 

average of future observations, is an interval that will, with a 

specified degree of confidence, contain the next (or the average 

of some other pre-specified number of) randomly selected 

observation(s) from a population. Given this definition, the UPL 

represents the value which we can expect the mean of three 

future observations (3-run average) to fall below, based upon 

the results of an independent sample from the same population. 

In other words, if we were to randomly select a future test 

condition from any of these sources (i.e., average of three

runs), we can be 99 percent confident that the reported level 

will fall at or below the UPL value.

There are different UPL equations depending on the 

distribution of the data (e.g., normal, lognormal, 
Page 69 of 425

skewed/unknown). We first determined the distribution of each 

MACT floor pool’s data to determine the appropriate UPL equation 

using statistical tests of the kurtosis (K), standard error of 

kurtosis (SEK), skewness (S) and standard error of skewness

(SES). The skewness statistic (S) characterizes the degree of 

asymmetry of a given dataset. According to the skewness 

hypothesis test, if S is less than two times the SES, the data 

distribution can be considered to be normal. The kurtosis 

statistic (K) characterizes the degree of peakedness or flatness 

of a given data distribution in comparison to a normal 

distribution. According to the kurtosis hypothesis test, if K is 

less than two times the SEK, the data distribution can be 

considered to be normal. The skewness and kurtosis hypothesis 

tests were applied to both the reported test values and the logtransformed values of the reported test values to determine the 

distribution of each dataset. A UPL was then calculated for each 

MACT floor pool with the UPL equation corresponding to the 

dataset’s distribution (e.g., normal, lognormal, 

skewed/unknown).

A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, 

including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of 

kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 
Page 70 of 425

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

Test method measurement imprecision can also be a component 

of data variability. Of particular concern are those data that 

are reported near or below a test method’s pollutant detection 

capability. There is a concern that a floor emissions limit 

calculated using values at or near the method detection limit

may not account adequately for data measurement variability. The 

expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value 

occurring at or near the detection limit is about 40 to 50 

percent. Relative pollutant measurement imprecision decreases to 

a consistent 10 to 15 percent for values measured at a level 

about 3 times the method detection limit.2

One approach that we believe could be applied to account 

for measurement variability would require defining a detection 

limit that is representative of the data used in establishing 

the floor emissions limitations and also minimizes the influence 

of an outlier test-specific method detection limit value. The 

EPA has developed a list of representative detection levels 

(RDL) developed from available pollutant specific method 

detection levels.3 These RDL values are then multiplied by three

 2 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method Accuracy and 

Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements, 

CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.

3 “Data and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing 
Page 71 of 425

to decrease measurement imprecision to around 10 to 15 percent 

(as noted in the previous paragraph), resulting in values 

referred to as “3xRDL” values.

The appropriate 3xRDL value was compared to the calculated 

UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory. If the 3xRDL value 

was less than the calculated UPL value, we concluded that 

measurement variability is adequately addressed and we used the 

calculated UPL value as the MACT floor emissions limit. If, on 

the other hand, the 3xRDL value was greater than the calculated 

UPL value, we concluded that the calculated UPL value does not 

account entirely for measurement variability. We then used the 

3xRDL value in place of the calculated UPL value to ensure that 

measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT 

floor emissions limit. This check was part of the variability 

analysis for all existing MACT floors that had below detection 

limit (BDL) or detection level limited (DLL) run data present in 

the best performing datasets (see the technical memorandum

“Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0291).

As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in 

setting floors, not only because variability is an element of 

 various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits.”

Memorandum from Peter Westlin, SPPD, MPG and Raymond Merrill, AQAD, MTG, to 

SPPD management and MACT rule writers. December 13, 2011.
Page 72 of 425

performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best 

performance over time. For example, we know that the HAP 

emission data from the best performing units are, for the most 

part, short-term averages and that the actual HAP emissions from 

those sources will vary over time. If we do not account for this 

variability, we would expect that even the units that perform 

better than the floor on average could potentially exceed the 

floor emission levels a part of the time, which would mean that 

variability was not properly taken into account. This 

variability may include the day-to-day variability in the total 

HAP input to each unit; variability of the sampling and analysis 

methods; and variability resulting from site-to-site differences 

for the best performing units. The EPA’s consideration of 

variability accounted for that variability exhibited by the data 

representing multiple units and multiple data values for a given 

unit (where available). We calculated the MACT floor based on 

the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described earlier from the 

average performance of the best performing units and the 

variability of the best performing units.

We believe this approach reasonably ensures that the 

emission limits selected as the MACT floors adequately represent 

the level of emissions actually achieved by the average of the 

units in the top 12 percent, considering operational variability 

of those units. Both the analysis of the measured emissions from 
Page 73 of 425

units representative of the top 12 percent and the variability 

analysis are reasonably designed to provide a meaningful 

estimate of the average performance or central tendency, of the 

best performing 12 percent of units in a given subcategory. A 

detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

Table 5 of this preamble presents the average emission 

level of the best performing sources and the existing source 

MACT floor. For this source category, all the existing source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL.

Table 5—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Existing Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter Hgb PMb,c

Large tunnel 

kilns (≥ 10 

tph)

Avg. of best performing 

sources

1.6 E-05 lb/ton

1.7 E-04 lb/hr

14 μg/dscm 

--

MACT floor 2.2 E-05 lb/ton

2.7 E-04 lb/hr

29 μg/dscm

--

Small tunnel 

kilns (< 10 

tph)

Avg. of best performing 

sources

1.8 E-04 lb/ton

0.0010 lb/hr

62 μg/dscm 

--

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 lb/ton

0.0011 lb/hr

70 μg/dscm 

--

All kilns Avg. of best performing 

sources

-- 0.041 lb/ton

0.011 gr/dscf 

MACT floor -- 0.16 lb/ton

0.040 gr/dscf 

a For this source category, all the existing source MACT floors are based on 

the UPL.

b Concentration units are at 7-percent O2.
Page 74 of 425

c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals.

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

The approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for 

new sources is somewhat different from the approach that we used 

to calculate the MACT floors for existing sources because the 

statutory standard is different. Although the MACT floors for 

existing units are intended to reflect the performance achieved 

by the average of the best performing 12 percent of sources, the 

MACT floors for new units are meant to reflect the emission 

control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled 

similar source. Thus, for existing units, we are concerned about 

estimating the central tendency of a set of multiple units, 

whereas for new units, we are concerned about estimating the 

level of control that is representative of that achieved by a 

single best performing source. As with the analysis for existing 

sources, the new source analysis must account for variability.

Similar to the MACT floor process used for existing units, 

the approach we used for determining the MACT floor for new 

units was based on available emissions test data. Specifically, 

we calculated the new source MACT floor for a subcategory of 

sources by ranking each unit’s average emission value within the 

subcategory from lowest to highest to identify the best 

performing similar source. The new source MACT floor limits for 
Page 75 of 425

Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) were 

calculated based on the performance of the best performing

source for each pollutant in each of the subcategories.

The MACT floor limits for new sources were calculated using 

the same UPL formula as was used for existing sources, except 

the data used were from the best performing source rather than 

the best performing 12 percent of sources. As previously 

discussed, we accounted for variability of the best performing

source in setting floors, not only because variability is an 

element of performance, but because it is reasonable to assess 

best performance over time. We calculated the new source MACT 

floor based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described 

earlier from the average performance of the best performing

similar source, Student’s t-factor and the total variability of 

the best performing source.

This approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit 

selected as the MACT floor for new sources adequately represents 

the average level of control achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source, considering ordinary operational 

variability. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology 

is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
Page 76 of 425

Table 6 of this preamble presents, for each subcategory and 

pollutant, the average emission level of the best performing

similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.

Table 6—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products New Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter Hgb PMb,c

Large tunnel 

kilns (≥ 10 

tph)

Avg. of top performer 1.5 E-05 lb/ton

1.8 E-04 lb/hr

10 μg/dscm 

--

MACT floor 2.0 E-05 lb/ton

2.4 E-04 lb/hr

13 μg/dscm 

--

Small tunnel 

kilns (< 10 

tph)

Avg. of top performer 1.8 E-04 lb/ton

0.0010 lb/hr

62 μg/dscm

--

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 lb/ton

0.0011 lb/hr

70 μg/dscm 

--

All kilns Avg. of top performer -- 0.0060 lb/ton

0.0020 gr/dscf 

MACT floor -- 0.022 lb/tond

0.0066 gr/dscfd

a The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b Concentration units are at 7 percent O2. c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on the 3xRDL value.

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

In a recent United States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit decision in National Association of Clean 

Water Agencies v. EPA, which involved challenges to EPA’s MACT 

standards for sewage sludge incinerators, questions were raised 
Page 77 of 425

regarding the application of the UPL to limited datasets. We 

have since addressed these questions, as explained in detail in 

the memorandum titled, “Approach for Applying the Upper 

Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets” (hereafter referred to as 

the “Limited Dataset Memo”), which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. 

A limited dataset is defined as having less than seven data 

points. In calculating MACT floor limits based on limited 

datasets, we considered additional factors as described in the

Limited Dataset Memo. We seek comments on the approach described 

in the Limited Dataset Memo and whether there are other 

approaches we should consider for such datasets. We also seek 

comments on the application of this approach for the derivation 

of MACT limits based on limited datasets in this proposal, which 

are described in the Limited Dataset Memo.

For the BSCP manufacturing source category, we have limited 

datasets for the following pollutants and subcategories: Hg for 

existing and new small tunnel kilns; PM for new tunnel kilns; 

and Hg for new large tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we 

performed the steps outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See 

the Limited Dataset Memo for more information.
Page 78 of 425

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing 

sources?

As discussed in sections II.A and IV.D of this preamble, 

the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements 

that are more stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-thefloor options). When considering beyond-the-floor options, the 

EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of HAP, but must take into account the associated 

costs, energy and non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts.

Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for each 

subcategory, we considered regulatory options more stringent 

than the MACT floor level of control (e.g., the performance of 

technologies that could result in lower emissions) for the 

different subcategories. We considered requiring all existing 

sources to meet the new source MACT floors for Hg and PM (as a 

surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) developed as described in 

section IV.F of this preamble. We analyzed the beyond-the-floor 

options for Hg and total non-Hg HAP metals separately for 

existing sources. Our analyses are documented in the technical

memorandum, “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts 

for the BSCP NESHAP,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

The beyond-the-floor option for total non-Hg HAP metals is 

estimated to achieve additional non-Hg HAP metals reductions of 
Page 79 of 425

2.86 tpy and cost an additional $22.8 million per year (2011 

dollars), for a cost effectiveness of $7,960,000 per ton of 

total additional non-Hg HAP metals removed. The beyond-the-floor 

option for Hg is estimated to achieve additional Hg reductions 

of 0.0625 tpy (125 pounds per year) and cost an additional $9.25

million per year (2011 dollars), for a cost effectiveness of 

$148,000,000 per ton of total additional Hg removed ($74,000 per 

pound of additional Hg removed). We have concluded that the 

incremental costs of additional control beyond the MACT floor 

emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of 

emission reduction achieved for either the Hg or total non-Hg 

HAP metals beyond-the-floor options. Therefore, we are not 

proposing beyond-the-floor limits for Hg or total non-Hg HAP 

metals.

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

The MACT floor level of control for new tunnel kilns for 

each pollutant was based on the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source 

within each of the subcategories. A new kiln would likely need 

both a FF and ACI system for control of non-Hg HAP metals and Hg 

to meet the new source MACT floors. When we establish a beyondthe-floor standard, we typically identify control techniques 

that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit more 

stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were identified 
Page 80 of 425

that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the new source 

floors for the subcategories. Therefore, the EPA is not 

proposing a beyond-the-floor limit for new sources in this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

In developing the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, we 

considered whether it was appropriate to establish health-based 

emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid 

gases HF, HCl and Cl2. As a general matter, CAA section 112(d) 

requires MACT standards at least as stringent as the MACT floor 

to be set for all HAP emitted from major sources. However, CAA 

section 112(d)(4) provides that for HAP with established health 

thresholds, the EPA has the discretionary authority to consider 

such health thresholds when establishing emission standards 

under CAA section 112(d). This provision is intended to allow 

the EPA to establish emission standards other than technologybased MACT standards, in cases where an alternative emission 

standard will still ensure that the health threshold will not be 

exceeded, with an ample margin of safety. This section discusses

the prerequisite for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard, 

the factors the EPA considered in exercising its discretion to 

set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard and how the EPA set the 

level of the proposed standard.
Page 81 of 425

1. What are the prerequisites for setting a CAA section

112(d)(4) standard?

The prerequisites for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) 

standard are that the pollutant must have a health threshold and 

not be carcinogenic.4 Whether a pollutant has a health threshold 

is based on certain factors, including evidence and 

classification of carcinogenic risk and evidence of 

noncarcinogenic effects:5

• The EPA “presumptively concludes” that known, probable and 

possible carcinogens (Group A, B and C pollutants) “should 

not be categorized as threshold pollutants.”

• Pollutants for which there is not enough evidence to make a 

conclusion on carcinogenicity (Group D pollutants) will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

• Pollutants classified as non-carcinogens (Group E 

pollutants) are “presumptively considered” to be threshold 

pollutants.6

Health threshold standards may not be set for pollutants that 

are carcinogenic.7

 4 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54985 (col. 2-3) 

(September 9, 2010) (“In order to exercise this discretion [to set health 

threshold standards under 112(d)(4)], EPA must first conclude that the HAP at 

issue has an established health threshold...”). 5 See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed 

Rule, 63 FR 18754, 18766/1-18767/1 (April 15, 1998). 6 The current weight-of-evidence under the 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen 

Risk Assessments, which replaced the 1986 cancer guidelines, recommends the 

following cancer hazard descriptors: “Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Likely to Be 

Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential,” 

“Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential,” and “Not Likely to 

Be Carcinogenic to Humans” (which are considered equivalent to the 1986 

groups A,B,C,D and E respectively).

7 See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed 

Rule, 63 FR 18754, 18765/3 (“The EPA presumptively applies section 112(d)(4) 

only to HAP’s that are not carcinogens because Congress clearly intended that 

carcinogens be considered nonthreshold pollutants”).
Page 82 of 425

The EPA has exercised its discretionary authority under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) in a handful of prior actions setting 

emissions standards for other major source categories, including 

the emissions standards issued in 2004 for commercial and 

industrial boilers and process heaters, which were vacated on 

other grounds by the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. In the proposals for both the Pulp 

and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP, 63 FR at 

18765 (April 15, 1998) and Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, 67 FR at 

78054 (December 20, 2002), the EPA invoked CAA section 112(d)(4) 

for HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility. In 

those proposed actions, the EPA concluded that HCl had an 

established health threshold (in those cases it was interpreted 

as the reference concentration for chronic effects or RfC) and 

was not classified as a human carcinogen. In light of the 

absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk, the availability of 

information on noncarcinogenic effects and the limited potential 

health risk associated with the discrete units being regulated, 

the EPA concluded that it was within the EPA’s discretion to set 

an emissions standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl under 

the circumstances of those actions.

In more recent actions, the EPA noted that HCl was a 

threshold pollutant, but decided not to propose a health-based 

emission standard for HCl emissions under CAA section 112(d)(4) 
Page 83 of 425

for Portland Cement facilities (74 FR at 21154; May 6, 2009) or 

for Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR at 32032; June 4, 2010)

for other reasons. To date, the EPA has not implemented a NESHAP 

that applied the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(4) to HF or 

Cl2.8

Since any emission standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) 

must consider the established health threshold level, with an 

ample margin of safety, in this proposed BSCP manufacturing

rulemaking the EPA has considered the adverse health effects of 

the HAP acid gases, HCl, Cl2 and HF. The standard approach for 

determining potential hazards of a pollutant has been to use a 

health benchmark below which effects are not expected to occur. 

Described below are the health effects and benchmarks for HCl, 

Cl2 and HF and the rationale for their designation as threshold 

pollutants. It is important to note that if exposure levels as 

proposed by the emissions limits in this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rulemaking are achieved, the adverse health 

effects described below will not be of concern for emissions 

from these source categories.

Hydrogen chloride is corrosive to the eyes, skin and mucous 

membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose and

respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary 

 8 The EPA has not classified HF or Cl2 gas with respect to carcinogenicity. 

However, at this time the agency is not aware of any data that would suggest 

either of these HAP are carcinogens.
Page 84 of 425

edema in humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been 

reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis and dermatitis in 

workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause 

dental discoloration and erosion. No information is available on 

the reproductive or developmental effects of HCl in humans. In 

rats exposed to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have 

been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and 

decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. The EPA 

conducted a toxicity assessment of chronic inhalation exposure 

to HCl and has established an RfC of 20 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3

).9 An RfC is defined as an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups10) that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The 

EPA RfC for HCl was based on respiratory toxicity observed in 

animals. An uncertainty factor of 300 was applied to the lowest 

adverse effect level noted in animals. This assessment did not 

 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS). Hydrogen chloride (CASRN 7647-01-0). 1995. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm. Accessed on April 11, 2014. 10 “Sensitive subgroups” may refer to particular life stages, such as children 

or the elderly or to those with particular medical conditions, such as 

asthmatics.
Page 85 of 425

take into account effects associated with acute exposure.11 The 

EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity.

With respect to the potential health effects of HCl, we 

know the following:

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the RfC is 

not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects.

• Little research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity. 

The one occupational study of which we are aware found no 

evidence of carcinogenicity.

• There is a significant body of scientific literature 

addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HCl.12

Based on this information, the agency believes it is 

reasonable to classify HCl as a Group D pollutant.13 Based on the 

negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s knowledge of how 

HCl reacts in the body and its likely mechanism of action, as 

discussed above, the agency considers HCl to be a threshold 

pollutant.

The effects of acute exposure to humans and animals to Cl2

have been well characterized. Similar to HCl, Cl2 is a well-known 

sensory irritant (capable of eliciting sensory irritation) and 

the most sensitive target for toxicity in humans and animals is 

 11 California EPA considered acute toxicity and established a 1-hour reference 

exposure level (REL) of 2.1 mg/m3

. An REL is the concentration level at or 

below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of safety.

12 See California Office of Health Hazard Assessment. Acute Toxicity Summary 

for Hydrogen Chloride. Available at:

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD2_final.pdf#page=112, 

EPA, 2008. 13 See Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, Review 

Draft; EPA–600/8–87/041A, August 1994.
Page 86 of 425

the respiratory system. Acute exposures to low levels of Cl2

(approximately 3 to 40 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)) have 

been shown to cause nose, eyes and throat irritation in humans. 

Acute exposure to high levels (above 40 mg/m3) of Cl2 in humans 

can result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis and

pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term) exposure to Cl2 gas in 

workers has resulted in respiratory effects including eye and 

throat irritation and airflow obstruction. Animal studies have 

reported decreased body weight gain, eye and nose irritation, 

non-neoplastic nasal lesions and respiratory epithelial 

hyperplasia from chronic inhalation exposure to Cl2. There is no 

evidence that Cl2 causes reproductive or developmental effects in 

animals or humans. A few studies of workers in the chemical 

industry did not find any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic. The 

EPA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and

the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have not 

classified Cl2 gas as to its carcinogenicity.

The human health value for Cl2 is an Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) 

of 0.00015 μg/m3

.14 The MRL is defined as an estimate of daily 

human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of adverse effects (other than cancer) over a 

 14 Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36.
Page 87 of 425

specified duration of exposure.15 The MRL was based on 

respiratory toxicity (nasal lesions) observed in a chronic 

inhalation exposure (1 year) in monkeys. An uncertainty factor 

of 30 was applied to the MRL to account for uncertainties in 

extrapolating results from animal to humans and to account for 

human variability. Since the effects of acute exposure of humans 

and animals to Cl2 have been well characterized, the ATSDR 

toxicity profile for Cl2 also included acute MRL.

With respect to the potential health effects of Cl2, we know 

the following:

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the MRL is 

not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects.

• The acute effects of Cl2 have been well characterized in 

humans.

• Studies of workers in the chemical industry did not find 

any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic.

Based on the negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s 

knowledge of how Cl2 reacts in the body and its likely mechanism 

of action, as discussed above, the agency presumptively 

considers Cl2 to be a threshold pollutant.

There is a significant body of scientific literature 

addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HF.16 Hydrogen 

 15 Inhalation MRLs are used in noncancer assessments when IRIS RfCs are not 

available because their concept, definition and derivation are 

philosophically consistent (though not identical) with the basis for EPA’s 

RfCs (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf). 16 California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen 

Fluoride. 2003. Available at

http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270.
Page 88 of 425

fluoride is a respiratory tract irritant capable of causing 

severe tissue damage in the respiratory system. Acute (shortterm) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe 

respiratory effects in humans, including severe irritation and 

pulmonary edema. Severe ocular irritation and dermal burns may 

occur following eye or skin exposure in humans. Because the 

toxic effects of HF are, to a large extent, based on the 

fluoride ion rather than the hydrogen ion, it is noteworthy to 

mention that the major health effect of chronic inhalation 

exposure to high levels of fluoride is skeletal fluorosis. In 

skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates in the bone 

progressively over many years and can cause a variety of 

symptoms including stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe 

cases, the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify,

resulting in muscle impairment and pain. Chronic inhalation 

exposure to HF (with particulate fluorides) in the aluminum 

industry has been associated with increased risk of asthma. 

Chronic oral exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial 

effect of dental cavity prevention and may also be useful for 

the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of 

fluoride may cause dental and bone fluorosis. Although the 

existing toxicological database on fluoride does not provide 

strong evidence for the consideration of fluoride as an 

essential element, several organizations consider fluoride an 
Page 89 of 425

important dietary element for humans. The Institute of Medicine 

(IOM) has derived adequate intake values ranging from 0.01 to 4 

milligrams per day to reduce the occurrence of dental caries.17

The World Health Organization (WHO) considers fluoride to be 

“essential” because it considered “resistance to dental caries 

to be a physiologically important function.”18 With regard to HF 

carcinogenic potential, the ATSDR Public Health Statement 

document states that “carcinogenicity via inhalation of fluoride 

is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting 

in the existing literature.” The EPA has not classified HF for 

carcinogenicity.

The chronic inhalation noncancer human health value the EPA 

uses for HF is the REL of 0.014 mg/m3 derived by California EPA 

(CalEPA).19 CalEPA defines the REL as a concentration level at 

(or below) which no adverse health effects are anticipated for 

specific exposure durations, a concept that is substantially 

similar to EPA's non-cancer dose-response assessment perspective

and we, therefore, use it as an alternate value in the absence 

 17 IOM. 1997. Dietary reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, 

vitamin Dand fluoride. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. National 

Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press. 

www4.nationalacademies.org/iom/iomhome.nsf. 18 WHO. 2002. Fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 

Environmental Health Criteria Number 227. 

http://www.inchem.org/pages/ehc.html. 19 California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen 

Fluoride. 2003. Available at 

http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270.
Page 90 of 425

of an IRIS RfC.20 REL are designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of 

safety. The REL was based on minimal changes in bone density 

(skeletal fluorosis) in the workplace by Derryberry et al.21

CalEPA states that major strengths of the key study on which the 

chronic REL is based is the observation of health effects in a 

large group of workers exposed over many years and the 

identification of no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL). 

The primary uncertainty in the study is the lack of 

comprehensive health effects examination. Another source of 

concern is the potential for greater susceptibility of children 

to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid bone 

growth at early lifestages. This effect applies with particular 

importance to children’s teeth since it has been established 

that excessive exposure to fluoride during tooth development in 

infancy and childhood causes dental fluorosis. To account for 

uncertainties, the CalEPA REL included a factor of 10 for 

intraspecies differences (which also accounts for variation in 

kinetics between children and adults). In addition, the chronic 

 20 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has 

developed dose-response assessments for many substances, based both on 

carcinogenicity and health effects other than cancer. The process for 

developing these assessments is similar to that used by the EPA to develop 

IRIS values and incorporates significant external scientific peer review. The 

EPA may use CalEPA values in the absence of an IRIS value. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf. 21 Derryberry OM, Bartholomew MD, Fleming RBL. 1963. “Fluoride exposure and 

worker health.” Arch Environ Health 6:503-514.
Page 91 of 425

inhalation REL is lower than the oral chronic REL and the 

California Public Health Guidance for fluoride in drinking 

water, which are based on lifetime exposure and protective of 

infants and children. CalEPA also considered the acute toxicity 

of HF and established a 1-hour REL of 0.24 mg/m3 based on mild 

eye and respiratory irritation.

With respect to the potential health effects of HF, we know 

the following:

• Chronic exposure at or below the REL is not expected to 

cause adverse effects.

• There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic 

potential of HF. With regard to the carcinogenic potential 

evidence available, the ATSDR Public Health Statement 

document on HF states that “carcinogenicity via inhalation 

of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most 

investigators reporting in the existing literature.”22

• There is significant evidence on the health effects of 

acute exposure to HF allowing for the derivation of an 

acute health benchmark.

Based on the negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s 

knowledge of how HF reacts in the body and its likely mechanism 

of action, as discussed above, the agency considers HF to be a 

threshold pollutant.

 22 Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36.
Page 92 of 425

2. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its 

discretion whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard?

The EPA may exercise its discretionary authority under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) only with respect to pollutants with a health 

threshold. Where there is an established threshold, the EPA 

interprets CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow it to weigh additional 

factors, beyond any established health threshold, in making a 

judgment whether to set a standard for a specific pollutant 

based on the threshold or instead follow the traditional path of 

developing a MACT standard after determining a MACT floor. In 

deciding whether to exercise its discretion for a threshold 

pollutant for a given source category, the EPA interprets CAA 

section 112(d)(4) to allow it to take into account factors such 

as the following:

• The availability of data to set the health-based standard;

• Co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, 

such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or 

criteria pollutants;

• The potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the 

pollutant; and

• The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to 

concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with 

similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other 

source categories, where the concentration of the threshold 

pollutant emitted from the given source category is below 

the threshold.

If the EPA does determine that it is appropriate to set a 

standard based on a health threshold, the agency must develop 

emission standards that will ensure the public will not be
Page 93 of 425

exposed to levels of the pertinent HAP emitted from the source 

category in question in excess of the health threshold, with an 

ample margin of safety.

a. Availability of Data to Determine a Standard

In determining whether to set a health-based standard, the 

EPA considered whether sufficient data for a particular industry 

are available to determine such a standard. In previous rules, 

the EPA declined to set a health-based standard, based in part 

on the unavailability of data to determine a standard.23 However, 

for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, because of the 

relatively small number of facilities compared to other rules 

such as the Boiler MACT proposal, the EPA was able to determine 

facility-specific information, including tunnel kiln locations 

and operating characteristics and stack parameters, available 

for all BSCP facilities to assess the feasibility of healthbased standards in this rule. Such information enabled us to 

conduct the dispersion modeling necessary to establish a healthbased emission limit for acid gases.24 Consequently, we have 

concluded that we have enough information to determine the 

 23 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010) (“[W]e 

have concluded that we do not have sufficient information at this time to 

establish what the health-based emission standards would be for HCl or the 

other acid gases.”). 24 For more information, see the technical memorandum, “Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category,” in Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
Page 94 of 425

health-based emission standards for the acid gases HF, HCl and

Cl2 for the BSCP manufacturing industry. As discussed in further 

detail below, these limits have been developed to ensure that 

exposure is below the health threshold for each facility and 

also ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health 

concerns.25

b. Co-benefits

We also considered whether setting technology-based MACT 

standards for HF, HCl and Cl2 from BSCP plants would result in 

significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most 

notably sulfur dioxide (SO2). Although MACT standards may 

directly address only HAP, not criteria pollutants, Congress did 

recognize, in the legislative history to CAA section 112(d)(4), 

that MACT standards would have the collateral benefit of 

controlling criteria pollutants as well and viewed this as an 

important benefit of the air toxics program.26 Therefore, even 

where the EPA concludes a HAP has a health threshold, the agency 

may consider such co-benefits as a factor in determining whether 

to exercise its discretion under CAA section 112(d)(4). The 

additional nationwide reductions of SO2 that would be 

 25 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 (September 9, 

2010) (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short-term emissions of 

HCl from cement kilns which might allow us to determine whether a chronic 

health-based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will 

not pose health concerns.”). 26 See S. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 172.
Page 95 of 425

attributable to BSCP MACT standards for acid gases are estimated 

to be only 4,300 tpy in the third year following promulgation of 

the proposed BSCP standards. This reduction is substantially 

lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for other 

industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a healthbased limit,27 and it would not be expected to provide a 

significant public health benefit.

c. Ecosystem Impacts

In addition to potential health impacts, the EPA has 

evaluated the potential for environmental impacts when 

considering whether to exercise discretion under CAA section

 27 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970 (September 9, 2010) –

Co-benefits was identified as the “decisive factor” in the Portland Cement 

NESHAP Final Rule. 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. There, EPA declined to set a healthbased standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other 

HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO2 and other HAP 

gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO2 alone 

attributable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons 

per year” and discussing both direct SO2 effects and effects of SO2 as a 

precursor to PM2.5) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl2), 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride (HF))] are also controlled 

during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet 

scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when 

considering a health-based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT 

Final Rule, 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this 

issue and continues to believe that the co-benefits are significant and 

provide an additional basis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not 

appropriate to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler 

MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010) – Co-benefits from MACT 

standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 

340,000 tons per year of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP 

acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and Hg. See also MATS Proposed Rule, 76 FR 

24976, 25051/1 – Co-benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate 

for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO2 and 

unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and 

Hg.
Page 96 of 425

112(d)(4).28 The agency applied the environmental risk screen 

methodology that it uses in the Risk and Technology Program 

under section 112 of the CAA to evaluate the potential for 

chronic exposure to acid gases emitted by BSCP facilities to 

cause phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants.

The environmental screen uses air concentrations from the 

HEM-3 model used in the human health exposure and risk analysis. 

We take these concentrations and derive an area-weighted average 

offsite annual ambient air concentration for each pollutant. The 

area-weighted average concentrations are compared directly to 

the appropriate ecological benchmarks for a given pollutant by 

dividing the area-weighted average concentration by the 

appropriate ecological benchmark. The result is called a hazard 

quotient (HQ). An HQ greater than 1 indicated that the areaweighted average concentration exceeded the ecological 

benchmark.

For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the 

acid gases HCl and HF around each BSCP facility. Although Cl2 may 

also be emitted from BSCP facilities, chlorine gas is so 

reactive that it is not expected to remain in the environment 

very long after it is released. Chlorine immediately reacts with 

both organic and inorganic materials that it comes into contact 

 28 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/3 (September 9, 

2010).
Page 97 of 425

with. Chlorine undergoes direct photolysis in the air and its 

half-life in the troposphere is on the order of several minutes. 

Therefore, it was not considered in the environmental risk 

screening for the BSCP Manufacturing source category.

For HCl, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 

area-weighted average modeled concentrations of HCl around each 

facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the 

ecological benchmark. In addition, there was only one facility 

with a modeled concentration of HCl at an offsite receptor 

location that exceeded the ecological benchmark and that was at 

a single receptor.

For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 

area-weighted average modeled concentrations of HF around each 

facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the 

ecological benchmarks. There were multiple facilities with 

modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that 

exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the 

value was exceeded was less than one percent of the offsite 

modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there would 

not be any significant or widespread environmental effects.
Page 98 of 425

d. Cumulative Effects

The EPA may consider the availability of information on 

emissions from co-located and nearby sources and consider if it 

is feasible to determine the potential cumulative health effects 

from emissions from the sources in the category when combined 

with other emissions from other sources that are co-located or 

located nearby. Relevant emissions may include both emissions of 

the same pollutant and emissions of other pollutants that may 

cause cumulative effects.

Through the BSCP industry’s responses to the 2008 EPA 

survey and the 2010 EPA survey, we have substantial information 

on the locations of BSCP plants and the levels of HF, HCl and Cl2

emitted from those plants. BSCP plants are not commonly colocated with any other type of operations. They are typically

located near the source of the raw materials on large tracts of 

land from which raw materials are extracted. This provides an 

additional buffer between the BSCP plants and the surrounding 

area. Because of the relatively low plume heights, maximum risks 

from the BSCP plants are located close to the facility property 

line. In trying to define cumulative risks from nearby non-BSCP 

emissions, the location and emissions associated with other 

sources not in the BSCP Manufacturing source category are far 

less certain. While the EPA 2008 survey and EPA 2010 survey data 

for BSCP facilities have been reviewed by EPA engineers and 
Page 99 of 425

scientists, the emissions levels and locations of nearby other 

facilities, such as those in the NEI, have not undergone the 

same level of detailed review. Thus, a quantitative analysis of 

nearby emissions may contain significant uncertainty. However, 

as discussed above, because of the large footprint of BSCP 

facilities, their rural locations and the BSCP risks being 

confined to the near plant locations, we do not expect that the 

combined emissions of HF, HCl or Cl2 from BSCP facilities and 

nearby other sources would result in substantial cumulative 

health and environmental effects.

3. How did the EPA set the level of the standard?

Based on the EPA’s findings, including the minimal 

cumulative health and environmental effects expected from colocated and nearby sources, the minimal co-benefits of setting 

technology-based MACT standards for acid gases, the minimal 

ecosystem impacts from setting a health-based standard in place 

of a MACT standard and the availability of data to determine a 

health-based standard, the EPA is proposing to exercise its 

discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is 

consistent with the EPA’s prior decisions where we found it 

appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the 

authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, because the 

circumstances in this case differ from those previous 
Page 100 of 425

considerations. We request comment on the analysis and 

conclusions regarding setting health-based standards.

Following from the EPA’s determination that a health-based 

standard is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health 

effects on which the threshold is based.

• There must be no observable adverse effect.

• The standard must not allow greater adverse environmental 

effects than the MACT standard that would otherwise be 

established.

• A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from 

compliance based on a showing that the source’s emissions 

do not pose a health risk.

CAA section 112(d)(4) expressly states that the healthbased standard must be set at the threshold level “with an ample 

margin of safety.” In addition, the legislative history of CAA 

section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health-based emission limit 

under CAA section 112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which 

no observable effects occur, with an ample margin of safety.29

Because the statute requires an ample margin of safety, it would 

be reasonable to set any CAA section 112(d)(4) emission standard 

for a pollutant with a health threshold at a level that at least 

assures that, for the sources in the controlled category or 

subcategory, persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would 

not experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold 

 29 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32030/2 (June 4, 2010), citing 

S.Rep. 101–228 at 171–72.
Page 101 of 425

is based.30 The legislative history also states that establishing 

a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard rather than a conventional MACT 

standard “shall not result in adverse environmental effects 

which would otherwise be reduced or eliminated.”31

The EPA’s decision to exercise its discretion to use CAA 

section 112(d)(4) will not be used to exclude sources from 

compliance. The EPA does not believe that a plain reading of the 

statute supports the establishment of an approach in which the 

EPA excludes specific facilities from complying with emissions 

limits if the facility demonstrates that its emissions do not 

pose a health risk. While CAA section 112(d)(4) authorizes the 

EPA to consider the level of the health threshold for pollutants 

which have an established threshold, that threshold may be 

considered when establishing emissions standards under CAA 

section 112(d). Therefore, the EPA must still establish 

emissions standards under CAA section 112(d) even if it chooses 

to exercise its discretion to consider an established health 

threshold.32

As part of the development of the proposed standards, we 

have maintained an inventory of major source facilities, 

 30 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010). 31 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54985/2 (September 9, 

2010), citing S.Rep. 101-228 at 171-72. 32 See Boiler MACT Final Rule, 76 FR 15608, 15643/3-14644/1 (March 21, 2011). 

See also MATS Final Rule, 77 FR 9304, 9406/1 (February 16, 2012) (same point 

using nearly identical text).
Page 102 of 425

including the size and operating hours of each tunnel kiln and 

the geographic location and physical attributes (e.g., stack 

height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each tunnel kiln stack. 

To develop a health-based emission limit, both long-term and 

short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks 

from the BSCP manufacturing source category were estimated using 

the Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector HEM-3 version 

1.3.1). The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment 

activities: (1) conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing 

within 50 kilometers of the modeled sources and (3) estimating 

individual and population-level inhalation risks using the 

exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information.

The air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model (AERMOD) 

is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing pollutant 

concentrations from industrial facilities. To perform the 

dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk 

estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a 

library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes one year (2011) of hourly 

surface and upper air observations for 824 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and 

Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau 
Page 103 of 425

census block internal point locations and populations provides 

the basis of human exposure calculations.33 In addition, for each 

census block, the census library includes the elevation and 

controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion 

calculations. A third library of pollutant unit risk factors and 

other health benchmarks is used to estimate health risks. These 

risk factors and health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and other toxic air pollutants. 

The chronic and acute values for the acid gases evaluated in 

this assessment are presented in Tables 7 and 8 of this 

preamble, respectively. Further information on the development 

and sources of these benchmarks and the overall modeling 

approach is presented in the technical memorandum, “Risk 

Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for 

Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291.

Table 7—Dose-Response Values for Chronic Inhalation Exposure to 

Acid Gases

Pollutant CAS Numbera

RfC

(mg/m3) Source

Hydrogen chloride 7647010 0.02 IRIS

Hydrogen fluoride 7664393 0.014 CalEPA

Chlorine 7782505 0.00015 ATSDR

a Chemical Abstract Services identification number. For groups of compounds 

 33 USEPA Human Exposure Model; available at http://www2.epa.gov/fera/downloadhuman-exposure-model-hem.
Page 104 of 425

that lack a CAS number, we have used a surrogate 3-digit identifier 

corresponding to the group’s position on the CAA list of HAP.

Table 8—Dose-Response Values for Acute Inhalation Exposure to 

Acid Gasesa

Pollutant

CAS 

Number

AEGL-1

(1-hr)

(mg/m3)

AEGL-2

(1-hr)

(mg/m3)

ERPG-1

(mg/m3)

ERPG-2

(mg/m3) REL

Hydrogen chloride 7647010 2.7 33 4.5 30 2.1

Hydrogen fluoride 7664393 0.82 20 1.6 16 0.24

Chlorine 7782505 1.5 5.8 2.9 8.7 0.21

a AEGL = Acute Exposure Guideline Level, ERPG = Emergency Response Planning 

Guideline

In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we 

used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of 

each acid gas emitted by each source in the source category. The 

air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were 

used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 

concentration for all the people who reside in that census 

block. Chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed by 

comparing a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio. 

The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by a reference level 

(e.g., the RfC). For a given acid gas, exposures at or below the 

reference level (HQ less than or equal to 1) are not likely to 

cause adverse health effects. As exposures increase above the 

reference level (HQs increasingly greater than 1), the potential 

for adverse effects increases. For a typical risk assessment 

where multiple pollutants are co-emitted, we aggregate noncancer 

HQs of HAP that act by similar toxic modes of action or (where 
Page 105 of 425

this information is absent) that affect the same target organ. 

This process creates, for each target organ, a specific hazard 

index (TOSHI) defined as the sum of HQs for individual HAP that 

affect the same organ or organ system. Because we performed HEM3 model runs for each acid gas individually, we did not 

aggregate HQ values of different acid gases. Of course, multiple 

acid gas pollutants are emitted at BSCP facilities, but a 250 

tpy level of HCl-equivalent emissions (based on the HEM risks 

modeling) ensures that a TOSHI of 1 is not exceeded as long as 

the HCl-equivalent emissions do not exceed 250 tpy. It is 

important to note that this emission limit is only applicable to 

the sources in this source category and should not be considered 

for sources other than those included in this analysis. 

Equivalent emissions for other acid gases are determined by the 

ratio of the chronic RfCs to that for HCl, such that the HClequivalent emissions for HF are 175 tpy and for Cl2 are 1.9 tpy.

For the assessment of potential health risks from acute 

exposures to the acid gases, we performed a screening assessment 

using conservative assumptions that in combination approximate a 

worst-case exposure. The acute exposure scenario assumed worstcase meteorology (from one year of local meteorology) and that a 

person is located downwind at the point of maximum impact during 

this same worst-case 1-hour period, but no nearer to the source 
Page 106 of 425

than 100 meters, which is conservative for this industry given 

our understanding of the locations of these facilities.

Screening for potentially significant acute inhalation 

exposures also followed the HQ approach. We divided the maximum 

estimated acute exposure by each available short-term threshold 

value to develop an array of HQ values relative to the various 

acute endpoints and thresholds. In general, when none of these 

HQ values are greater than 1, there is low potential for acute 

risk. In those cases where HQ values above 1 are seen, 

additional information is used to determine if there is a 

potential for significant acute risks. Additional information 

for facilities in the BSCP manufacturing source category 

included using aerial imagery of the facilities to determine the 

maximum offsite 1-hour concentrations.

Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic 

dose-response values, the 250 tpy level does not necessarily 

ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the 

HCl and Cl2 model runs, there were no facilities with acute 

screening HQ values exceeding 1. For HF, we estimate that four 

of the 91 facilities examined had an acute value exceed the REL,

with the highest being 2. However, no facility exceeded an HQ 

(AEGL-1) value for HF. To assure that no source emits more than 

the 250 tpy HCl-equivalent limit in a single hour, we propose 
Page 107 of 425

setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 250 tpy

(57 lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions).

It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds 

are developed from back-calculating the emissions that would 

result in an HQ of 1 at the worst-case facility. Potential risks 

at other facilities (not the worst-case facility) are predicted 

to be well below 1.

Because we had site-specific data on the operation of each 

tunnel kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling to ensure 

that (1) the health-based emission limit cited above for BSCP 

facilities provides an ample margin of safety and (2) persons 

exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not experience the 

adverse health effects on which the threshold is based. In 

addition, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas emissions 

associated with BSCP kilns, based on results from the EPA’s 

environmental risk screen methodology outlined above, are not 

expected to have an adverse environmental impact.

Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the healthbased emission limit by determining their facility-wide HCl, HF

and Cl2 emissions, calculating the HCl-equivalent emissions for 

HF and Cl2 using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the 

HCl-equivalent values to calculate the total HCl-equivalent 

emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided 

in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. For more information on 
Page 108 of 425

the development of the health-based standard see the technical 

memorandum “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based 

Emissions Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. For more information on the calculation of 

an HCl-equivalent value, see the technical memorandum 

“Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP 

NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice 

standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not 

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The EPA 

is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for certain 

HAP from certain BSCP manufacturing sources is not feasible 

because the application of measurement methodology to certain 

sources is not practicable due to technological and economic 

limitations. Specifically, the EPA is proposing a work practice 

standard for BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of emission limits for 

acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl2), Hg and non-Hg HAP metals. The EPA 

is also proposing a work practice standard for dioxin/furan 

emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu of a dioxin/furan 

emission limit. The rationale for these work practice standards 

is discussed in the paragraphs below. We request comment on how 
Page 109 of 425

the work practice standards were developed and the proposed 

standards themselves.

1. Periodic Kilns

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of 

Emission Standard

Overview. Periodic kilns are batch process units that are 

used for firing BSCP under a carefully controlled environment. 

The large majority of BSCP are fired in tunnel kilns, which 

operate continuously and are much more energy-efficient than 

periodic kilns when producing BSCP of a uniform type, such as 

standard building bricks. In contrast, periodic kilns can 

readily accommodate variations in firing temperature profiles 

and cycle times to match the requirements of a wide variety of 

products. As a result, periodic kilns generally are reserved for 

specialty products and typically are used only when necessary.34

In the BSCP industry, periodic kilns are classified as 

either beehive kilns or shuttle kilns, but all operate generally 

the same. A batch of unfired bricks or shapes is loaded into the 

cold kiln, the kiln is sealed and the burners are ignited and 

controlled to carefully increase the temperature according to a 

time-temperature profile specific to the products being 

manufactured. Once firing is complete, the temperature in the 

 34 See the memorandum titled “Rationale for Establishing Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
Page 110 of 425

kiln is reduced, the burners are extinguished and the fired 

product is allowed to cool. When the product is at or near 

ambient temperature, the kiln is opened and the fired products 

are removed.35

Based on responses to the 2008 EPA survey sent to the BSCP 

industry, periodic kiln cycle times range from 35 to 168 hours 

per cycle and typically take 48 to 58 hours. These cycle times 

cover the period beginning when the burners are first ignited 

and ending when the burners are cut off. It may take an 

additional 8 to 10 hours for the fired products to cool before 

they can be removed from the kiln.36

Emissions. Based on limited data from the testing of three 

BSCP periodic kilns using Method 320 (Fourier transform infrared 

(FTIR) spectroscopy), emissions of HF and HCl begin within the 

first 5 to 10 hours of the firing cycle and continue throughout 

the firing cycle. Emissions are highly variable and can 

experience large spikes at various points throughout the cycle. 

In addition, it is likely that emissions continue beyond the 

completion of the firing cycle, as the fired products cool. HF 

concentrations in the kiln exhaust can still exceed 100 parts 

per million at the end of the firing cycle.37

 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id.
Page 111 of 425

Testing Periodic Kilns for Emissions of HF and HCl. The 

conventional compliance test requirement for most emission 

sources is to test each source for three 1-hour test runs. This 

requirement is based on the assumptions that the source operates 

continuously and that emissions are relatively constant. 

However, there generally are some variations in emissions. For 

this reason, the source is tested over three separate runs and

the results are averaged to generate a number that is 

representative of typical emissions.38

Unlike continuous sources, emissions from BSCP periodic 

kilns can vary significantly over the course of one cycle. 

Because of these variations and the fact that emissions begin 

shortly after the start of the firing cycle and continue beyond 

the end of the cycle for an undetermined period of time, the 

conventional compliance test requirement of three 1-hour test 

runs cannot accurately measure emissions. Instead, the only way 

to accurately determine the total emissions from a BSCP periodic 

kiln cycle is to measure the emissions throughout the entire 

firing cycle and continuing beyond the completion of the cycle 

until emission levels become negligible. Testing for any less 

time could result in estimated emissions that are either much 

 38 Id.
Page 112 of 425

higher or much lower than actual emissions, depending on when 

during the kiln cycle emissions are sampled.39

Because of the variations during firing cycles and 

variations across the tests, sampling a single kiln cycle is not 

adequate for characterizing periodic kiln emissions, so more 

than one kiln cycle would have to be tested. Given that BSCP 

periodic kiln cycle times typically range from 48 to 58 hours, 

each periodic kiln would need to be tested for more than 100 

hours in order to determine an emission rate that is 

representative of normal operating conditions. Also, because 

BSCP periodic kilns are used to fire specialty products that may 

have significantly differently time-temperature profiles, it 

would be necessary to test the same kiln multiple times to 

characterize emissions from different types of products.40

Test Methods. The standard reference methods for measuring 

emissions of HF and HCl are EPA Methods 26 and 26A. These

methods are reliable and relatively inexpensive. However, if 

emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears 

to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns, breakthrough of HCl can 

occur. That is, the testing apparatus reaches its capacity for 

absorbing HCl and subsequent HCl in the emissions are not 

captured. It is not known if breakthrough has occurred until a 

 39 Id. 40 Id.
Page 113 of 425

breakthrough analysis is performed after completion of the test. 

If it is determined that breakthrough has occurred, retesting is 

necessary. Another disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for 

testing throughout periodic kiln cycles is the need for 

additional manpower to operate the sampling trains around the 

clock and to recover samples.41

An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduct the 

tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320. With FTIR, HCl 

breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides 

near real-time emissions data. However, as noted in the 

following section, the cost for testing by FTIR is expensive, 

similar to the cost for testing by Methods 26 or 26A throughout 

an entire cycle.42

Emission Test Costs. The cost for testing by FTIR is 

estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50-hour kiln 

cycle. If it were determined that the variations in emissions 

from cycle to cycle were significant, it would be necessary to 

test each kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a 

representative emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would 

double the testing cost to almost $100,000 and testing for a 

third cycle would triple the cost to almost $150,000 (2009 

dollars). In addition to these costs, additional costs would be 

 41 Id. 42 Id.
Page 114 of 425

incurred for testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would 

have to be tested using a manual test method (e.g., EPA Methods 

5 or 17). If testing were extended into the cooling period, the 

costs would be even higher.43

To address the potential economic impact of a requirement 

to test periodic kilns, we conducted a cost-to-sales assessment.

(See the memorandum “Economic Feasibility of Testing Periodic 

Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.) The 

conclusion that testing is not economically feasible for most of 

the kilns is quite clear. Over half of the kilns included in the 

analysis have estimated cost-to-sales percentages greater than 3

percent. The economic analysis estimates that for the upper end 

of the closure estimate for the other kilns when the costs are 

between 3 percent and 5 percent, one-quarter of the firms will 

close. This possibility of closure makes this level of costs for 

testing not economically feasible.

Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Periodic 

Kilns. CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may 

prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, 

consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in 

those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is 

not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA section 

 43 Id.
Page 115 of 425

112(h)(2)(B) further defines the term “not feasible” in this 

context to apply when “the application of measurement technology 

to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations.”

Because of the technological and economic limitations 

described above, we conclude that it is not practicable to 

establish numerical emission limits for BSCP periodic kilns. 

Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit for 

periodic kilns is technologically limited to testing procedures 

that are economically infeasible for the BSCP industry. 

Consequently, we are proposing a work practice standard for BSCP 

periodic kilns under CAA section 112(h).44

b. Development of Work Practice Standard

Information provided to the EPA indicates there are six 

operational factors that have a direct bearing on HAP emissions 

from BSCP periodic kilns: temperature, firing cycle, product 

quality, automatic control, combustion control and kiln 

load/kiln technology.45 These six operational factors and their 

impact on HAP emissions are described further in the paragraphs 

below.

Temperature. Various scientific test methods are used to 

study the reactions in brick clays during heating. Differential 

 44 Id. 45 See the memorandum titled “Work Practice Standards for Periodic Kiln 

Operations,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
Page 116 of 425

thermal analysis, thermo gravimetric analysis and simultaneous 

thermal analysis are techniques used to show the oxidation, dehydroxylation and vitrification reactions, as well as the weight 

loss characteristics of the material. Knowledge of these 

reaction characteristics would enable the brick manufacturer to 

design the kiln firing cycle for the optimization of the product 

quality and to minimize process losses. Ensuring good product 

quality and minimizing process losses would eliminate the need 

for additional production firing cycles to meet the quantities 

demanded by the market, thereby avoiding the generation of 

additional HAP emissions.46

Firing Cycle. Each periodic firing process in the brick 

industry is unique and is governed by the nature of the brick 

clay material being fired. For example, some shale materials 

have higher carbon and sulfur levels and require a longer 

“dwell” at the oxidation temperature range from 1,600 °F to 

1,700 °F, while other clay materials are more refractory in 

nature and require higher final firing temperatures in order to 

develop the desired finished color and the physical properties 

to meet the ASTM standards required by the market. These factors 

influence the period of time in the oxidation stages, as well as 

the time required in the final “soak” stage of the firing cycle. 

 46 Id.
Page 117 of 425

HAP emissions have also been shown to take place in these stages 

of the firing cycle.47 Consequently, knowledge of these factors 

is key to avoiding any additional emissions during these stages.

Product Quality. The time and temperature relationships 

previously described affect the ultimate quality and 

acceptability of the finished product. An “over-fired” product 

would produce excessive shrinkage, color variation and process 

losses. This type of firing cycle would likely produce higher 

HAP emissions per ton of ware fired. Similarly, an under-fired 

product would not meet durability standards required by the ASTM 

standards and the market. While under-firing the product would 

produce less HAP emissions, more product would have to be fired 

to meet production requirements, which would lead to more HAP 

emissions per sellable ton of ware. Therefore, any work practice 

standard would need to be a practice that produces the best 

product quality and the minimum HAP emissions. This optimized 

work practice would entail developing an optimum firing cycle 

for each particular brick clay body.48

Automatic Control. The design of the kiln firing system 

influences the brick manufacturers’ ability to achieve 

repeatable, maximum product quality results. Most periodic kiln 

operators in the brick industry have used modern programmable 

 47 Id. 48 Id.
Page 118 of 425

logic controller (PLC) technology for some time. These systems 

enable the brick manufacturer to program the kiln firing 

temperature over a well-established, optimized time cycle, to 

achieve repeatable results. Modern high-velocity burner 

technology is commonly employed.49 Achieving repeatable, maximum 

product quality results would eliminate the need to fire 

additional product to meet production requirements, thereby 

avoiding the generation of additional HAP emissions.

Combustion Control. The use of PLC technology enables the 

rate of gas delivery to the burner system to be accurately 

programmed, to ensure that each stage of the firing cycle is 

accurately controlled and to avoid over-firing or under-firing. 

The measuring devices that are part of the combustion equipment 

enable the kiln operator to adjust the air-to-fuel ratios in 

each stage, to achieve the optimum combustion efficiency needed 

to produce the desired product. In this way, the production of 

poor quality, rejects and losses is minimized. Technology that 

does not achieve this would produce higher losses and poor 

quality, resulting in additional production firing cycles being 

required to meet the quantities demanded by the market and 

additional HAP emissions.50

 49 Id. 50 Id.
Page 119 of 425

Kiln Load/Kiln Technology. For proper combustion, it is 

important that the periodic kiln not be overloaded, as 

overloading could cause improper combustion and lost product, 

resulting in additional production firing cycles and additional 

HAP emissions. To ensure proper firing, the following parameters 

should be addressed:51

• Employment of draft controls on exhaust fans to adjust 

exhaust volume flow.

• Measurement, monitoring and control of kiln pressure by 

adjustment of kiln exhaust.

• Measurement and monitoring of kiln temperatures.

• Measurement and control of air and fuel flow to the 

combustion system.

Work Practice Standard. Based on these six operational 

factors, the following work practice standard is proposed under 

CAA section 112(h):52

• Each facility would have to develop and use a designed 

firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced 

in the periodic kiln, by programming the time and 

temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on 

a log sheet.

• Each facility would have to label each periodic kiln with 

the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln 

during a single firing cycle.

• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the 

maximum load and document the total tonnage placed in the 

kiln to show that it is not greater than the maximum load.

• Each facility would have to develop and implement 

maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the 

frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following 

items:

 51 Id. 52 See the email titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the docket for the 

proposed BSCP rulemaking.
Page 120 of 425

o Calibration of temperature measuring devices

o Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios

o Controls that regulate firing cycles

• Each facility would have to develop and maintain records 

required for each periodic kiln, including logs to document 

the proper operation of the periodic kilns and logs of the 

maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with 

the standard.

2. Dioxin/Furan Emissions

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard

The significant majority of measured dioxin/furan emissions 

from BSCP tunnel kilns are BDL and the EPA considers it 

impracticable to reliably measure dioxin/furan emissions from 

these units. (Note: Both dioxin/furan emissions and detection 

levels are in terms of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

(TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQ).) The fact that the majority of 

measurements are so low casts doubt on whether the tests 

accurately measured the true levels of emissions. The 

dioxins/furans for each run were compared to one-half the RDL 

developed for utilities.53 Overall, 15 out of 18 test runs (83 

percent of the entire test run dataset) contained dioxin/furan 

estimates below one-half of the RDL. Based on the difficulties 

with accurate measurements at the levels of dioxins/furans 

encountered from tunnel kilns and the economics associated with 

units trying to apply measurement methodology to test for 

 53 Johnson, S. Determination of “non-detect” from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) 

and EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of 

MACT floors versus establishing work practice standards. June 5, 2014.
Page 121 of 425

compliance with numerical limits, we are concluding that 

application of measurement methodology is not practicable and 

are proposing to set a work practice standard under CAA section 

112(h). We request comment on the rationale for setting work 

practice standards.

b. Work Practice Standard

The proposed work practice standard described below ensures 

that equipment is maintained and run so as to minimize emissions 

of dioxins and furans. The work practice would involve 

maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion 

controls (as applicable), tuning the specific burner type to 

optimize combustion, keeping records of each burner tune-up and

submitting a report for each tune-up conducted. Dioxins/furans

are products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and optimizing 

combustion limits the formation of PIC, thereby minimizing 

emissions of dioxins/furans.

We are proposing that the tune-up must be conducted no less 

frequently than every 36 calendar months. Initial compliance 

with the work practice standard of maintaining burners must 

occur within 180 days of the compliance date of the BSCP 

manufacturing rule. The initial compliance demonstration for the 

work practice standard of conducting a tune-up must occur no 

later than 42 months (36 months plus 180 days) from the 
Page 122 of 425

effective date of the final BSCP manufacturing rule. We request 

comment on the proposed work practice standards.

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

As noted in section III.B of this preamble, tunnel kilns 

typically operate continuously, so startups and shutdowns are 

infrequent. Startup of a tunnel kiln involves starting up the 

burners based on a set procedure to raise the temperature of the 

kiln to the proper operational temperature for manufacturing 

bricks or structural clay products. Shutdown of a tunnel kiln is 

the process of cooling the kiln from the proper operational 

temperature by stopping the burners based on a set procedure. 

When the temperature of the kiln is below the proper operational 

temperature, BSCP manufacturers typically do not push new 

product into the kiln, so the emissions are not expected to be 

the same during startup and shutdown as during normal 

operations.

While the kiln is heating to the proper operational 

temperature during startup or cooling from the operational 

temperature during shutdown, other parameters such as exhaust 

flow rate, moisture content, O2 concentration and pressure are 

also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may 

not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown 

progresses, as the kiln does not heat or cool evenly. The 
Page 123 of 425

fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with the 

relatively steady-state conditions needed for valid, accurate 

results over three test runs using the measurement methods 

proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance.

Even if testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, 

most of the emission limit formats chosen for this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule are not appropriate for use during periods 

other than normal operation. For example, if there is no 

throughout in the kiln, emission limits that are in a mass per 

throughput format would be essentially meaningless. In addition, 

the concentration based-standards are corrected to a specified O2

concentration to avoid the use of dilution air to lower the 

measured concentration, but during startup and shutdown, the O2

concentration in the kiln exhaust is likely to fluctuate. This 

means that even if an owner or operator could conduct an 

emissions test and measure the O2 content during startup and 

shutdown for comparison to the O2-corrected emission limit, the 

fluctuations in O2 content and other parameters in the kiln mean 

that the O2-corrected emissions are also fluctuating.

For tunnel kilns with an APCD, venting the kiln exhaust 

through the APCD at low temperatures can cause operational 

problems, including moisture in the bags of a baghouse or 

solidification of the lime in a DIFF. Therefore, the BSCP owners 

and operators that responded to the SSM portion of the 2010 EPA 
Page 124 of 425

survey indicated that they bypass the APCD if the kiln exhaust 

temperature is below a “low temperature set point.” Based on 

information received through the 2010 EPA survey, this kiln 

exhaust temperature ranges from 284 to 400 °F for startup and 

from 150 to 300 °F for shutdown. All of the EPA survey

respondents indicated that no new product is introduced to the 

kiln as long as the APCD is bypassed, so that emissions are

minimized.

Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. 

For startup, the owner or operator would be required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln 

exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In addition, no bricks or 

other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln 

exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being 

vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator

would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the

APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In 

addition, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln 

once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the 

exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. When the 

kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or 

operator would be required to comply with the applicable 
Page 125 of 425

continuous compliance requirements described in section III.G of 

this preamble.

For kilns that can meet the proposed standards without an 

APCD, there are no concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures 

for bypassing an APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data 

through the 2010 EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of 

uncontrolled kilns. However, as noted above, we recognize that 

it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Therefore, we are proposing work practice

standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel 

kilns without an APCD. For startup, no bricks or other product

may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be 

put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 

°F. When there are bricks in the kiln, the owner or operator

would be required to comply with the applicable continuous 

compliance requirements described in section III.G of this 

preamble.

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that 

are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the 

requirements of this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. These 

requirements are described in detail in sections III.F and III.G

of this preamble. We selected these requirements based upon our 
Page 126 of 425

determination of the information necessary to ensure that the 

emission standards are being met and the work practices are 

being followed and that APCD and equipment are maintained and 

operated properly. Further, these proposed requirements ensure 

compliance with this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule without 

imposing a significant additional burden for facilities that 

must implement them.

We are proposing that initial compliance with the emission 

limits for HF, HCl, Cl2, PM (or non-Hg HAP metals) and Hg be 

demonstrated by an initial performance test. The proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule would also require 5-year repeat performance 

tests to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating 

properly and that its performance has not deteriorated.

The majority of test methods that this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule would require for the performance stack tests 

(e.g., EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required under many 

other EPA standards. Many of the emissions tests upon which the 

proposed emission limits are based were conducted using these 

test methods.

When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that 

parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To 

ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits, 

the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require continuous 

parameter monitoring of the kilns and APCD and maintaining these 
Page 127 of 425

parameters within the operating limits established during the 

performance test. We selected these parameter monitoring 

requirements because they produce data that will be useful to 

both the owners or operators and the EPA for ensuring continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and/or operating limits and

because of their reasonable cost and ease of execution.

The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed 

rule were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the BSCP 

industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the proposed 

emission limits. These parameters include lime injection rate 

(on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF and DLS/FF; 

pressure drop (or bypass stack damper position) and limestone 

feeder setting for DLA; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and

chemical addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; and 

activated carbon flow rate for ACI systems. If applicable for 

demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl/Cl2 standard, the kiln 

monitoring parameter included in the proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule is the kiln process rate. Many of these CPMS are standard 

features on BSCP tunnel kilns and their associated APCD and have 

also been used in other standards for similar industries.

In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for kilns 

equipped with a FF (e.g., a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand-alone FF) to 

either install a BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS 
Page 128 of 425

being proposed, BLD systems have also been used in other 

standards in similar industries. We have also determined that 

periodic VE checks are a reasonable alternative to BLD systems

for this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. Periodic VE checks 

have also been proposed for kilns without an add-on control to 

demonstrate continuous compliance.

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which 

affected sources must comply with the emission standards. Under 

CAA section 112(i)(1), new or reconstructed units must be in 

compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or 

the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. (The

final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is 

expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register.)

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), existing sources are allowed 

up to 3 years after the effective date of the rule to comply 

with the final rule. For this industry, we believe that 3 years 

for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, 

install and test any control systems that may need to be

retrofitted onto existing kilns, as well as obtain permits for 

the use of add-on controls.
Page 129 of 425

The compliance date for existing area sources that

subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 

63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such sources have 3 years from 

the date they become major sources to come into compliance, 

which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing 

sources discussed in the previous paragraph. Further, under the 

current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source

becomes a major source by the addition of equipment or 

operations that meet the definition of new affected source under 

this rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new 

affected source must be in compliance upon initial startup.

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

The owner or operator would be required to comply with the 

applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, 

subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 8 of the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. We evaluated the General 

Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be 

the notification, recordkeeping and reporting necessary to 

ensure compliance with and effective enforcement of this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.

We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep 

records on the firing time and temperature cycle for each 

periodic kiln, the type of product fired in each batch and the 
Page 130 of 425

amount of product fired in the periodic kiln, to address the 

operational factors that impact HAP emissions from periodic 

kilns and demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard 

for periodic kilns (discussed further in section IV.K.1 of this 

preamble).

In addition, we are proposing that the owner or operator

keep records and submit a report of each burner tune-up that is 

conducted to ensure good combustion practice and minimize the 

formation of dioxins/furans from incomplete combustion, to

demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan work practice 

standard for tunnel kilns (discussed further in section IV.K.2 

of this preamble).

We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep 

records and submit a report of each malfunction and the 

corrective action taken as part of the next semiannual 

compliance report. The proposed compliance report would provide 

information on each type of malfunction which occurred during 

the reporting period and which caused or may have caused an 

exceedance of an emission limit.

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes a 

requirement for electronic reporting of performance test data, 

which is discussed further in section III.I of this preamble.
Page 131 of 425

We request comment on ways that we could streamline the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule by relying on existing business practices.

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

The CAA requires that sources subject to the BSCP 

manufacturing rule, once finalized, be operated pursuant to a 

permit issued under an EPA-approved state operating permit 

program. The operating permit programs are developed under title 

V of the CAA and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 

70 and 71. If the facility is operating in the first 3 years of 

an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to obtain a 

revised permit to incorporate the requirements of this BSCP 

manufacturing rule. If the facility is in the last 2 years of an

operating permit, the owner or operator will need to incorporate 

the requirement of this BSCP manufacturing rule into the next 

renewal of the permit.

Q. What are the alternate approaches the EPA is considering?

1. Alternate Non-Hg HAP Metals Standards

As noted in section IV.E of this preamble, the proposed 

emission limits for total non-Hg HAP metals and PM are based on 

the best performing 27 kilns with a DIFF or DLS/FF (i.e., 12 

percent of the kilns in the industry). Instead of these proposed 

limits, we are considering an alternate approach of setting 

emission limits for total non-Hg HAP metals and PM based on MACT 
Page 132 of 425

floors calculated using the top 12 percent of the data available

in each of the kiln size subcategories, similar to the procedure 

we followed for setting the Hg limits.

The alternate PM limits were calculated using the same 

procedure as described in section IV.E for Hg. In other words, 

the kilns were ranked within each subcategory on the basis of 

their lb/ton PM emissions and the top 12 percent best performing

kilns were identified (top 9 large kilns and top 3 small kilns). 

Both the PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for 

existing sources were calculated based on those top 12 percent. 

The alternate PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for 

new sources were calculated based on the best performing source 

in each subcategory.

As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, the EPA must 

take considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For the 

BSCP alternate options, we have limited datasets for the 

following pollutants and subcategories: PM for new large tunnel 

kilns and PM for new small tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we 

performed the steps outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See 

the Limited Dataset Memo for more information.

The alternate total non-Hg HAP metals limit was calculated 

using a similar methodology as the proposed total non-Hg HAP 

metals limit. Since the alternate total non-Hg HAP metals limits 

were calculated based on smaller datasets, we found that there 
Page 133 of 425

were no small kilns in the top three best performing kilns with 

both PM and non-Hg HAP metals data and only one large kiln in 

the top nine best performing kilns with both PM and non-Hg HAP 

metals data. Therefore, the alternate large kiln total non-Hg 

HAP metals limit for existing sources was calculated by 

multiplying the alternate PM lb/ton limit by the throughput and 

the percentage of non-Hg HAP metals measured in the PM during 

that test. The alternate small kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit for 

existing sources was then set equal to the existing source large 

kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit. For new sources, the best 

performing unit in the PM new source MACT floor pool did not 

have any non-Hg HAP metals data. Therefore, the alternate large 

kiln total non-Hg HAP metals limit for new sources was 

calculated using the average throughput and the average 

percentage of non-Hg HAP metals measured during tests for kilns 

with a FF-based APCD. The alternate small kiln non-Hg HAP metals 

limit for new sources was then set equal to the new source large 

kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit.

The alternate emissions limits for existing and new sources 

are presented in in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. 

We request comment on the calculation methodology used to 

generate these alternate limits, which is described in the
Page 134 of 425

technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products” in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291), as well as comment on 

whether we should use these limits instead of the limits we are 

proposing.

2. HAP Metals Work Practice Standard

In the recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel, members of the BSCP manufacturing industry

discussed whether work practice standards for Hg and non-Hg HAP 

metals would be more appropriate for BSCP tunnel kilns than 

emissions limits for these pollutants. BSCP manufacturing 

industry representatives noted the high percentage of test runs 

below the respective detection limits in the tests results for 

each metal as support for this suggestion.

We reviewed the available stack test data for Hg and non-Hg 

HAP metals from BSCP tunnel kilns to evaluate this suggestion. 

For Hg, we found that all test runs were actually above the 

detection limits. For the non-Hg HAP metals, we found that only 

one of the individual non-Hg HAP metals had a high percentage of 

test runs below the detection limit. We found a high percentage 

of test runs above the detection limits for all the other non-Hg 

HAP metals. For more information on this analysis, please see 

the technical memorandum “Determination of “Non-Detect” Test 
Page 135 of 425

Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0291.

Because Hg and most of the non-Hg HAP metals are emitted 

from BSCP kilns in detectable levels, the EPA believes it is 

technologically practicable to measure these emissions and they 

do not meet the statutory prerequisite for work practice 

standards under CAA section 112(h). Consequently, we have 

declined to propose work practice standards for Hg or non-Hg HAP 

metals. Although we are not proposing work practices for HAP 

metals, we are requesting comment on this issue. We are 

specifically asking for emissions data or any other information 

relevant to the issue of whether the metals emissions from these 

sources meet the statutory prerequisite for work practice 

standards in CAA section 112(h).

3. Emissions Averaging

As part of the EPA’s general policy of encouraging the use 

of flexible compliance approaches where they can be properly 

monitored and enforced, we are also requesting comment in this 

proposed rule on whether to include emissions averaging as an 

alternative to the individual MACT floor emission limits in the 

proposed rule. Specifically, the EPA is requesting comment on 

whether to consider alternative emissions averaging limits for 

PM (in units of lb/ton or gr/dscf at 7 percent O2) and total nonHg HAP metals (in units of lb/hr) for existing tunnel kilns.
Page 136 of 425

Emissions averaging can provide sources the flexibility to 

comply in the least costly manner while still maintaining 

regulation that is workable and enforceable. Emissions averaging 

would not be applicable to new sources and could only be used 

between existing tunnel kilns in the same size subcategory 

(large or small) at a particular BSCP facility.

Emissions averaging would allow owners and operators of an 

affected source to demonstrate that the source complies with the 

emission limits by averaging the emissions from an individual 

affected unit that is emitting above the emission limits with 

other affected units at the same facility that are emitting 

below the emission limits.

We are requesting comment on whether to include an 

emissions averaging compliance alternative in which emissions 

averaging represents an equivalent, more flexible, and less 

costly alternative to controlling certain emission points to 

MACT levels. A limited form of averaging could be implemented 

that would not lessen the stringency of the MACT floor limits 

and would provide flexibility in compliance, cost and energy 

savings to owners and operators. We also recognize that we must 

ensure that any emissions averaging option can be implemented 

and enforced, will be clear to sources, and would be no less 

stringent than unit by unit implementation of the MACT floor 

limits.
Page 137 of 425

The EPA has concluded that it is permissible under the 

appropriate circumstances to establish within a NESHAP a unified 

compliance regimen that permits averaging within an affected 

source across individual affected units subject to the standard 

under certain conditions. Averaging across affected units is 

permitted only if it can be demonstrated that the total quantity 

of any particular HAP that may be emitted by that portion of a 

contiguous major source that is subject to the NESHAP will not 

be greater under the averaging mechanism than it could be if 

each individual affected unit complied separately with the 

applicable standard. Under this test, the practical outcome of 

averaging is equivalent to compliance with the MACT floor limits 

by each discrete unit, and the statutory requirement that the 

MACT standard reflect the maximum achievable emissions

reductions is, therefore, fully effectuated.

In past rulemakings, the EPA has generally imposed certain 

limits on the scope and nature of emissions averaging programs. 

These limits include: (1) no averaging between different types 

of pollutants, (2) no averaging between sources that are not 

part of the same affected source, (3) no averaging between 

individual sources within a single major source if the 

individual sources are not subject to the same NESHAP, and (4) 

no averaging between existing sources and new sources.
Page 138 of 425

Any emissions averaging alternative to the proposed rule 

requirements would fully satisfy each of these criteria. First, 

emissions averaging would only be permitted between individual 

sources at a single existing affected source, and would only be 

permitted between individual sources subject to the Brick and 

Structural Clay NESHAP. Further, emissions averaging would not 

be permitted between two or more different affected sources or 

between two or more sources in different subcategories. Finally, 

new sources could not use emissions averaging. In addition,any 

emissions averaging alternative would require each facility that 

intends to utilize emissions averaging to submit an emissions 

averaging plan, which provides additional assurance that the 

necessary criteria will be followed. In such an emissions

averaging plan, the facility would include the identification 

of: (1) all units in the averaging group, (2) the control 

technology installed, (3) the process parameter that will be 

monitored, (4) the specific control technology or pollution 

prevention measure to be used, (5) the test plan for the 

measurement of the HAP being averaged, and (6) the operating 

parameters to be monitored for each control device. Upon 

receipt, the regulatory authority would not be able to approve 

an emissions averaging plan containing averaging between 

emissions of different types of pollutants or between sources in 

different subcategories.
Page 139 of 425

This emissions averaging alternative would also exclude new 

affected sources from the emissions averaging provision. The EPA 

believes emissions averaging is not appropriate for new sources 

because it is most cost effective to integrate state-of-the-art 

controls into equipment design and to install the technology 

during construction of new sources. One reason to allow 

emissions averaging under certain circumstances is to give 

existing sources flexibility to achieve compliance at diverse 

points with varying degrees of add-on control already in place 

in the most cost-effective and technically reasonable fashion. 

This flexibility is not needed for new sources because they can 

be designed and constructed with compliance in mind.

With concern about the equivalency of emissions reductions 

from averaging and non-averaging in mind, we would also include 

under the emissions averaging provision caps on the current 

emissions from each of the sources in the averaging group. The 

emissions for each unit in the averaging group would be capped 

at the emission level being achieved on the effective date of 

the final rule. These caps would ensure that emissions do not 

increase above the emission levels that sources currently are 

designed, operated, and maintained to achieve. In the absence of 

performance tests, in documenting these caps, these sources 

would document the type, design, and operating specification of 

control devices installed on the effective date of the final 
Page 140 of 425

rule to ensure that existing controls are not removed or 

operated less efficiently. By including this provision in this 

proposed rule, we would further ensure that emissions averaging 

results in environmental benefits equivalent to or better than 

without emissions averaging.

In addition, we would plan to include a discount factor of 

10 percent that would be applied when emissions averaging is 

used. This discount factor will further ensure that averaging 

will be at least as stringent as the MACT floor limits in the 

absence of averaging. The EPA is soliciting comment on use of a 

discount factor and whether 10 percent is the appropriate 

discount factor or whether the appropriate discount factor is 

somewhere in the range of 5% to 25%. The emissions averaging 

provision would not apply to individual units if the unit shares 

a common stack with units in other subcategories, because in 

that circumstance it is not possible to distinguish the 

emissions from each individual unit.

The alternative emissions averaging provisions for which we 

are requesting comment in this proposed rule are based in part 

on the emissions averaging provisions in the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP (HON). The legal basis and rationale for the HON 

emissions averaging provisions were provided in the preamble to 

the final HON (59 FR 19425, April 22, 1994).

4. Subcategories Based on Raw Materials
Page 141 of 425

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to create subcategories which 

distinguish among ‘‘classes, types, and sizes of sources’’. 

Section 112(d)(1). EPA is taking comment on subcategorizing with 

regard to potential standards for mercury emitted by brick 

kilns. Were EPA to do so, each subcategory would have its own 

floor and standard, reflecting performance of the sources within 

that subcategory.

EPA may create a subcategory applicable to a single HAP, rather 

than to all HAP emitted by the source category, if the facts 

warrant. Normally, any basis for subcategorizing must be related 

to an effect on emissions, rather than to some difference among 

sources which does not affect emissions performance. The 

subcategorization possibility for mercury which we are 

considering is the mercury concentration of the raw materials in 

the kiln’s clay mine, or geographic location.

EPA does not have sufficient data to determine if mercury 

emissions correlate with the mercury content of the clay used as 

raw material by the kiln. Additionally, EPA does not have data 

that show to what extent mercury content of clay varies by kiln 

location (i.e., geographical distinction) or within a given 

source of clay, and to what extent a source could reduce mercury 

emissions by using an alternate source of clay with lower 

mercury content.
Page 142 of 425

 If data were available to show that the amount of mercury in 

the raw materials significantly affected mercury emissions, and 

that kilns could not reasonably use an alternative source of 

clay with lower mercury content, kilns using raw materials with 

higher mercury content might be considered a different type or 

class of kiln because their process necessarily requires the use 

of that higher-mercury raw materials.

However, data are not available to support subcategorization 

based on the amount of mercury in the raw materials. Such data 

would need to show a correlation between raw material content 

and mercury emissions and also need to indicate sharp 

disparities in raw material mercury content that readily 

differentiate among types of sources. Additionally, data would 

also be needed to show that alternate sources of raw materials 

with lower mercury content are not available or feasible. We 

are specifically asking for mercury emissions data coupled with 

raw materials mercury data. We are also asking for information 

regarding the availability of low mercury clay and the 

feasibility of using low mercury clay to reduce emissions.

EPA realizes that if this data is not currently available, 

obtaining this data may not be possible within the current 

schedule to promulgate the final rule. Therefore, EPA requests 

comment on possible approaches to resolve this issue. 
Page 143 of 425

V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Category

This section summarizes the requirements for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing source category proposed in today’s 

action. Section VI of this preamble provides our rationale for 

the proposed requirements.

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

Today’s proposed rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

applies to clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are 

located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category includes those 

facilities that manufacture pressed floor tile, pressed wall 

tile and other pressed tile; or sanitaryware (toilets and 

sinks).

B. What are the affected sources?

The affected sources, which are the portions of each source 

in the category for which we are setting standards, are: (1) 

each ceramic tile roller kiln; (2) each floor tile press dryer;

(3) each ceramic tile spray dryer; (4) each ceramic tile glaze 

line using glaze spraying; (5) each sanitaryware tunnel kiln; 

(6) each sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and (7) each sanitaryware 

glaze spray booth.

The following clay ceramics process units are not subject 

to the requirements of today’s proposed rule: (1) kilns that are 
Page 144 of 425

used exclusively for refiring or setting glazes on previously 

fired products; (2) glaze spray operations that use wet glazes 

containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis); 

(3) wall tile press dryers; and (4) sanitaryware ware dryers.

See section VI.A for information on why these sources are not 

subject to the proposed rule.

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule applies to 

owners or operators of an affected source at a major source 

meeting the requirements discussed previously in this preamble. 

A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 

group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and 

under common control that emits or has the potential to emit,

considering controls, 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or 

more of any combination of HAP.

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

1. Emission Limitations

We are proposing emission limits for PM as a surrogate for 

total non-Hg HAP metals for all new and existing ceramic tile 

roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile and 

sanitaryware glazing operations. We are proposing emission 

limits for Hg for all new and existing ceramic tile roller 

kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns. 
Page 145 of 425

We are proposing emission limits for dioxin/furan for all new 

and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns, floor tile press dryers and ceramic tile spray dryers. We 

are also proposing an emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all 

existing and new roller and tunnel kilns at each facility to 

reduce the acid gases HF and HCl. The proposed emission limits 

are presented in Table 9 of this preamble.

Table 9–Proposed Emission Limits for Clay Ceramics Sources

Subcategory

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HClequivalent)a

Hg

(lb/ton)

PMb

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)c

Limits for existing sources

Floor tile roller kilns 140 1.3 E-04 0.18 4.6

Floor tile press dryers -- -- -- 0.19

Floor tile spray dryers -- -- -- 44

Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile spray dryers -- -- -- 0.12

Tile glaze lines -- 1.6 E-04 1.9 --

First-fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

140 1.2 E-04 0.33 1.5

Sanitaryware manual glaze 

application

-- -- 33 --

Sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application

-- -- 12 --

Sanitaryware robot glaze 

application

-- -- 8.8 --

Limits for new sources

Floor tile roller kilns 140 3.9 E-05 0.027 1.5

Floor tile press dryers -- -- -- 0.19

Floor tile spray dryers -- -- -- 0.17

Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile spray dryers -- -- -- 0.12

Tile glaze lines -- 1.6 E-04 0.61 --

First-fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

140 1.2 E-04 0.095 0.37

Sanitaryware manual glaze 

application

-- -- 3.8 --
Page 146 of 425

Subcategory

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HClequivalent)aHg

(lb/ton)

PMb

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)c

Sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application

-- -- 3.2 --

Sanitaryware robot glaze 

application

-- -- 2.2 --

a Limit applies to all kilns at facility. b PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. c ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.

2. Work Practice Standards

We are proposing work practice standards in lieu of 

emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP 

metals for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The work practice 

standards would require using natural gas (or equivalent) as 

kiln fuel except during periods of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption; developing and using a designed firing time 

and temperature cycle for each product produced in the shuttle 

kiln; labeling each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) 

that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle;

documenting the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each load 

to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load;

developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln 

that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and 

developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, 

including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance 

procedures of the shuttle kilns.

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?
Page 147 of 425

The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section 

II.B of this preamble. Standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown are discussed in this section.

We are proposing work practice standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile 

press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be 

required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by 

the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In 

addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the 

kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the 

exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the 

owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the 

kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

below 300 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the 

APCD. When the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, 

the owner or operator would be required to comply with the 

applicable continuous compliance requirements described in 

section V.G of this preamble.

We are also proposing work practice standards for periods 

of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor 

tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware 
Page 148 of 425

tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no ceramics or other 

product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or 

dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no 

ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer

once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. When 

there are ceramics in the kiln or dryer, the owner or operator

would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the emissions 

limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble).

We are not proposing alternate standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected 

to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as 

described in section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the 

source is operating, including periods of startup and shutdown.

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

We are proposing that owners or operators of all affected 

sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial 

performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate 

initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A 

performance test would need to be conducted before renewing the 

facility’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 

years following the initial performance test, as well as when an 

operating limit parameter value is being revised.
Page 149 of 425

Under today’s proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, 

the owner or operator would need to measure emissions of HF, 

HCl, Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and

dioxins/furans. The owner or operator would measure HF and HCl 

from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first-fire 

tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 

Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic 

Method,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8;

• EPA Method 26, “Determination of Hydrogen Chloride 

Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8, when no acid particulate (e.g., HF or HCl 

dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled 

by a wet scrubber) is present;

• EPA Method 320, “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and 

Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR” 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A, provided the test follows the analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless the owner or 

operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking 

procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

Following the performance test, the owner or operator would 

calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using proposed 

Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(i). If there are multiple 

kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would sum the HClequivalent for each kiln using proposed Equation 5 in 40 CFR 

63.8595(f)(4)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent and 

compare this value to the proposed limitation.
Page 150 of 425

We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM 

emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware firstfire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 5, “Determination of Particulate Emissions from 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;

• EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals Emissions From 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, where 

the test results would report the weight of the PM on the 

filter as PM filterable; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

Method 29 or any other approved alternative method may also 

be used to measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns, 

ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel 

kilns.

We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM 

emissions from ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze spray booths 

using EPA Method 5 or any other alternative method that has been 

approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the 

General Provisions.

We are also proposing that the owner or operator measure 

dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray 

dryers, floor tile press dryers and sanitaryware first-fire 

tunnel kilns using EPA Method 23, “Determination of 

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated 

Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-7 or any other alternative method that has been approved by 
Page 151 of 425

the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance 

requirements that are being proposed. Prior to the initial 

performance test, the owner or operator would need to install 

the CPMS equipment to be used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, 

the owner or operator would use the CPMS to establish sitespecific operating parameter values that represent the operating 

limits.

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the 

APCD is free-flowing at all times during the HF/HCl performance 

test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired 

product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate 

varies, the owner or operator would be required to determine the 

average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the 

three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific feed rate 

operating limit. If there are different average feed rate values 

during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average 

values becomes the site-specific operating limit. If a BLD

system is present, the owner or operator would need to submit 

analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance 

with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
Page 152 of 425

For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or 

DLS) and a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator submit analyses and supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications 

for BLD systems.

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during 

the PM performance test, the scrubber liquid pH and the chemical 

addition rate (if applicable) during the HF/HCl performance test

and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM and HF/HCl 

performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or 

operator would need to determine and record the average values 

for the three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The 

average of the three test runs establishes the minimum sitespecific pressure drop, liquid pH, liquid flow rate and chemical 

addition rate operating limits. If different average wet 

scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM and 

HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average values become the sitespecific operating limits.

For an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg 

and dioxin/furan performance tests and determine the 3-hour 

block average flow rate. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the minimum site-specific activated carbon flow rate 
Page 153 of 425

operating limit. If different average activated carbon flow rate 

values are measured during the Hg and dioxin/furan tests, the 

highest of the average values becomes the site-specific 

operating limit.

If the owner or operator intends to comply with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator measure the operating 

temperature of the process (tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile 

spray dryer, floor tile press dryer) during the dioxin/furan 

performance test and determine the 3-hour block average 

operating temperature. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the site-specific operating limit.

For sources with no APCD installed, we are proposing that 

the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HClequivalent using proposed Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8595(g)(1)(i). 

The owner or operator would use the results from the performance 

test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process 

rate. For example, if the design capacity of the tunnel or 

roller kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the

performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 

percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are

multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would need 

to sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent for each kiln to get 

the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent and compare 
Page 154 of 425

this value to the proposed health-based emission limitation for 

acid gases. If the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent is greater than the proposed limitation, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator determine the maximum 

process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. If there 

are multiple kilns, the owner or operator would need to 

determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that 

would result in a total facility maximum potential HClequivalent that remains at or below the proposed limitation. The 

maximum process rate(s) would become the operating limit(s) for 

process rate. We are also proposing that the owner or operator

measure the operating temperature of a source during the 

dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3-hour block 

average operating temperature. The average of the three test 

runs establishes the site-specific operating limit for 

temperature.

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

Today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule proposes that the 

owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator would 

have to follow the requirements in the OM&M plan and document 

conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would need

to operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters 
Page 155 of 425

established during the initial performance test as described in 

the following paragraphs. The CPMS would have to collect data at 

least every 15 minutes, including at least three of four equally 

spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more 

than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of 

data. The owner or operator would have to operate the CPMS at 

all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator

would also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS, 

including inspections, calibrations and validation checks, and 

maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of 

the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator

would need to calculate and record the 3-hour block average 

values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average for 

each 3-hour averaging period, the owner or operator would need 

to have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that 

period.

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) 

health-based emission limit by maintaining free-flowing lime in 

the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is 

found not to be free flowing via the output of a load cell, 

carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop 

measurement system or other system, the owner or operator would 

have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions 
Page 156 of 425

according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also 

have to maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired 

product basis) at or above the level established during the

performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift.

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the proposed rule would provide the 

option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit.

For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a 

BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also need to operate 

and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more 

than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction, 

if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action 

is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is 

required, each alarm must be counted as a minimum of 1 hour and

if corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an 

alarm, the alarm time must be counted as the actual amount of 

time taken to initiate corrective action.

For the option of monitoring VE, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in 

accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, “Visual 

Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and 
Page 157 of 425

Smoke Emissions from Flares,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

During the VE observations, the source would need to be 

operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner 

or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete 

corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are 

observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner 

or operator may decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing 

from daily to weekly for that source. If VE are observed during 

any weekly test, the owner or operator would have to promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M 

plan and the owner or operator would need to resume EPA Method 

22 testing of that source on a daily basis until no VE are 

observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner 

or operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 

testing to a weekly basis.

For a stand-alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to 

demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit.

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for 

scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow 

rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the 

minimum values established during the applicable performance 

test. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber pressure 
Page 158 of 425

drop at or above the minimum value established during the PM 

performance test would demonstrate compliance with the PM 

emission limit. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for 

scrubber liquid pH and chemical (e.g., lime, caustic) addition 

rate at or above the minimum values established during the 

HF/HCl performance test would demonstrate compliance with the 

acid gas (HF/HCl) health-based emission limit. Maintaining the 

3-hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above 

the lowest minimum value established during the PM and HF/HCl 

performance tests would demonstrate compliance with all 

applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in 

proper working order.

For an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/furan 

emission limits by continuously monitoring the activated carbon 

flow rate and maintaining it at or above the lowest minimum 

value established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance 

tests.

If the owner or operator intends to comply with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance by 

continuously monitoring the operating temperature of the process

(tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile 

press dryer) and maintaining it at or above the average 
Page 159 of 425

operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test 

for the tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer and 

at or below the average operating temperature during the 

dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer.

For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with 

the PM emission limit by conducting a daily inspection to verify 

the presence of water flow to the wet control system, conducting

weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control 

equipment for leaks and conducting annual inspections of the 

interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine 

the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment.

For baffles on a spray glazing operation, we are proposing 

that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM 

emission limit by conducting an annual visual inspection of the 

baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.

For a source with no APCD, we are proposing that, to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit, the owner or 

operator monitor VE as described above; and, to demonstrate 

compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner or 

operator continuously monitor the operating temperature,

determine and record 3-hour block averages and maintain the 3-

hour block averages at or above the average operating 

temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the
Page 160 of 425

tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer and at or 

below the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan

performance test for the floor tile press dryer. In addition, if 

the last calculated total facility maximum potential HClequivalent was not at or below the proposed health-based 

emission limitation for acid gases, then we are proposing that 

the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the 

process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce the data to 

3-hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to

maintain the kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln process 

rate operating limit(s) that would enable the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent to remain at or below the 

proposed limitation.

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

All new and existing sources would be required to comply 

with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 

63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 9 of subpart 

KKKKK. The General Provisions include specific requirements for 

notifications, recordkeeping and reporting.

Each owner or operator would be required to submit a 

notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 

63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule would require the owner or operator to 
Page 161 of 425

include in the notification of compliance status report 

certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual 

compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart 

A, would also be required for each semiannual reporting period.

This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would 

require records to demonstrate compliance with each emission 

limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping 

requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 

40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK.

Specifically, we are proposing that the owner or operator

must keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

• Records of performance tests.

• Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

• Continuous monitoring data as required in this proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

• Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.

• Each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet 

each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating 

limits).

• Records of production rates.

• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing 

procedures.

• Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

• Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting 

conformance.

• Logs of the information required to document compliance 

with the shuttle kiln work practice standard.

• Logs of the information required to document compliance 

with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
Page 162 of 425

• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action 

taken.

We are also proposing to require that the owner or operator

submit the following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.

• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after 

the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.

• Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or 

other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days 

before the performance test and/or other compliance 

demonstration is scheduled.

• Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days 

following completion of a compliance demonstration that 

includes a performance test.

• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days 

following completion of a compliance demonstration that 

does not include a performance test (i.e., compliance 

demonstration for the work practice standard).

• Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of 

each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the 

corrective action taken.

• Report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after 

terminating use of the alternative fuel.

• Results of each performance test within 60 days of 

completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided 

software for data collected using supported test methods.

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

The ERT provisions being proposed for clay ceramics 

manufacturing are the same as those being proposed for BSCP 

manufacturing. The ERT provisions for BSCP manufacturing are 

discussed in section III.I of this preamble.

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing
Page 163 of 425

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

Based on our review of the available information on the 

clay ceramics manufacturing industry, we determined that there 

are three distinct sectors within the industry: (1) ceramic 

floor tile; (2) ceramic wall tile; and (3) sanitaryware. 

Specifically, we found that the ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall 

tile and sanitaryware sectors of the industry differ in terms of 

raw materials, processes and final products.

The primary raw materials used for manufacturing 

sanitaryware are ball clay, other clays, feldspar and silica, 

whereas ceramic tile is made primarily from ball clay, talc, 

nepheline syenite (an igneous rock comprised of nepheline, 

microcline and albite), fire clay and shale. However, while the 

raw materials are similar for ceramic floor and wall tile, the 

mix for ceramic wall tile includes more talc and less ball clay, 

resulting in a lighter-weight mix. Regarding processes, ceramic 

floor tile facilities use spray dryers to process the ceramic 

mix into a powder to allow tile pressing, followed by press 

dryers to press the tiles. The tile is then glazed prior to 

firing in a roller kiln. Ceramic wall tile facilities also use 

spray and press dryers, but they are designed, managed and

operated to handle the lighter weight raw material mix. Ceramic 

wall tile is produced in a two-step firing process using roller 
Page 164 of 425

kilns and it is glazed in between firings. On the other hand, 

sanitaryware facilities use tunnel kilns to fire the ceramic 

ware and they glaze the ware before firing, predominantly using 

glaze spraying.

Ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall tile and sanitaryware also 

have different characteristics as finished products and compete 

in different markets. Ceramic floor tile is defined as a 

vitreous product with a low water absorption rate. Floor tile is 

known for its multi-color, variably-textured, and slip-resistant 

characteristics, which are not acceptable in most wall tiles.

Ceramic wall tile is defined as a non-vitreous product required 

to meet a water absorption rate of 7 to 20 percent, much higher 

than that required for floor tile. Wall tile has much more 

stringent appearance requirements compared to floor tile, with 

the market demanding that most wall tile be mono-color, with a 

high gloss or smooth matte finish (requiring a two-step firing 

process). Sanitaryware is vitreous ceramic ware of zero or low 

absorption after firing that is used for plumbing and bathroom 

fixtures and accessories (such as toilets and ceramic sinks).

In the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, the foremost 

sources of HAP emissions are first-fire tunnel and periodic 

(shuttle) kilns at sanitaryware facilities and roller kilns at 

ceramic tile facilities. Based on emissions testing, the HAP 

emitted from first-fire tunnel kilns and roller kilns include 
Page 165 of 425

HF, HCl, Hg, other non-Hg HAP metals and dioxins/furans. Shuttle 

kilns are also assumed to emit these pollutants based on 

similarities in raw materials used in shuttle kilns and firstfire tunnel kilns. Other sources of HAP emissions at clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities are glaze lines that employ 

glaze spraying at ceramic tile facilities, glaze spray booths at 

sanitaryware facilities, spray dryers at ceramic tile facilities

and press dryers at floor tile facilities. The HAP emitted from 

ceramic tile glaze lines include Hg and non-Hg HAP metals, the 

HAP emitted from sanitaryware glazing operations include non-Hg 

HAP metals and the HAP emitted from ceramic tile spray dryers 

and press dryers are dioxins/furans. Other process units at clay 

ceramics facilities (e.g., raw material processing and handling, 

wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware dryers) have not 

been found to emit measurable quantities of HAP.54 For this 

reason, the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule covers 

those existing and new first-fire kilns, glaze spray operations, 

spray dryers and press dryers at major source clay ceramics

manufacturing facilities that emit HAP and meet the 

applicability criteria.

Additional clay ceramics process units that do not meet the 

applicability criteria include (1) kilns that are used 

 54 As part of the 2010 EPA survey, wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware 

ware dryers were tested for dioxins/furans, but none of the tests found 

detectable levels of dioxins/furans.
Page 166 of 425

exclusively for refiring or setting glazes on previously fired 

products; (2) glaze spray operations that use wet glazes 

containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis); 

and (3) glazing operations using a flow (curtain) coating or 

waterfall method.

Re-fire kilns are used for firing products that have 

already been fired but have minor defects, which are 

subsequently repaired. Nearly all of the emissions from the 

firing of a clay body (i.e., fluorides, chlorides) are released 

during the initial vitrification step conducted in first-fire 

kilns, while re-fire ware has already been vitrified and emits 

little to no fluorides or chlorides. Kilns that are used 

exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products also 

emit little to no HF or HCl for similar reasons. Glaze spray 

operations using glaze containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent 

metal HAP are expected to be an insignificant source of HAP 

emissions. Glaze applied using a flow (curtain) coating or 

waterfall method rather than using an aerosol spraying method 

would have little to no air emissions of non-Hg HAP metals.

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

For Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals)

emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and first-fire 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule includes numerical emission rate limits as a 
Page 167 of 425

mass of pollutant emitted per ton of product produced. For nonHg HAP metals emissions from ceramic tile glaze lines and 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths, this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule includes numerical emission rate limits for 

PM as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of glaze sprayed. For 

Hg emissions from ceramic tile glaze lines, this proposed rule 

includes numerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant 

emitted per ton of glaze sprayed. For dioxin/furan emissions 

from ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic 

tile spray dryers and first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this 

proposed rule includes numerical emission limits in units of 

concentration. The selection of numerical emission rate limits 

and numerical emission limits as the format for this proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule provides flexibility for the 

regulated community by allowing a regulated source to choose any 

control technology or technique to meet the emission limits, 

rather than requiring each unit to use a prescribed control 

method that may not be appropriate in each case. In addition, 

the selection of numerical emission rate limits as a mass of 

pollutant emitted per ton of product produced ensures that 

differences in the size or process rate of the affected source

do not affect the level of emissions control achieved.

The PM limits are proposed as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals. The same control techniques that would be used to 
Page 168 of 425

control PM will control non-Hg HAP metals. Particulate matter 

was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific 

individual HAP metals because all sources do not emit the same 

type and amount of non-Hg HAP metals due to differences in raw 

materials and glaze formulations. However, most sources 

generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of 

HAP metals. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the 

cost of performance testing to comply with numerous standards 

for individual non-Hg HAP metals.

For acid gases (HF and HCl), this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule includes a health-based emission limit as a 

mass of HCl-equivalent emitted per hour. Further discussion 

about the development of health-based standards for the proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is provided in section VI.J of 

this preamble.

This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes 

work practices for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. As described in 

more detail in section VI.K.1 of this preamble, technological 

and economic limitations make it impracticable to measure 

compliance with numerical emission limits for sanitaryware 

shuttle kilns.

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate 

emission standards for either categories or subcategories of 
Page 169 of 425

sources. Through subcategorization, the EPA may distinguish 

among classes, types and sizes of sources within a category.

1. Sanitaryware Kilns

Upon initial consideration of the available information on 

the sanitaryware sector of the clay ceramics manufacturing 

industry, we determined that separate subcategories for 

sanitaryware periodic (shuttle) kilns and sanitaryware 

continuous (tunnel) kilns were warranted because shuttle kilns 

are smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an 

hourly basis and accounting for only a small percentage of 

production) and are operated in batch cycles, whereas tunnel 

kilns operate continuously.

As noted in section VI.K.1 of this preamble, we have 

determined that it is technologically and economically 

infeasible to test shuttle kilns, thereby ruling out a 

quantitative analysis of how these differences impact emissions. 

However, a qualitative comparison can be made, in that smaller 

kilns operated periodically (i.e., shuttle kilns) would be 

expected to have lower emissions over time compared to the 

larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns.

2. Sanitaryware Glazing

We also determined that separate subcategories for three 

different glaze application methods for sanitaryware were 

warranted. Manual glaze spraying is done by a human operator 
Page 170 of 425

with one spray gun per station per booth. The ware are moved and 

set up manually and glaze is applied to one to two pieces at a 

time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of 

glaze spraying are the highest of the application methods. Spray 

machine, or chain-on-edge, glaze application is done by 

automatic reciprocating spray guns from a fixed location with 10

to 20 spray guns per booth. The ware are moved and set up on a 

“chain-on-edge” conveyor system and glaze is applied to six to 

seven pieces at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed 

for this type of glaze spraying are the second highest of the 

application methods. Robot glaze spraying is done by an 

automatic robot arm with one spray gun per booth. The ware are 

moved and set up manually and glaze is applied to one piece at a 

time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of 

glaze spraying are the lowest of the application methods.

We also examined subcategorization by manual spraying and 

non-manual spraying (where “non-manual spraying” would include 

both spray machine and robot glaze spraying), but we determined 

that the design and emission differences between spray machine 

and robot glaze spraying are significant enough to warrant 

separate subcategories.
Page 171 of 425

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

As noted in section IV.D of this preamble, all standards 

for new and existing sources established pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(2) must reflect MACT. The remainder of this section 

describes the development of the pool of data used to calculate 

the MACT floors for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals) and dioxins/furans. As noted in section VI.J of this 

preamble, health-based emissions standards are being proposed 

for the acid gases HF and HCl under the provisions of CAA 

section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not prepared a MACT 

floor analysis for these pollutants.

In our MACT floor analyses for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for 

non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans, we separated the data by 

industry sector, source type and subcategory as described in 

section VI.C of this preamble (if applicable). Within each of 

those categories or subcategories, we ranked the data in terms 

of lb/ton for PM and Hg and in terms of nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 7 percent O2 for dioxins/furans 

(as described in section VI.E of this preamble). Because there 

are less than 30 sources in each subcategory, we identified the 

top five (best performing) sources for which we had data. For 

subcategories with less than five sources, we considered all 

sources for which we had data as best performing sources. Once 
Page 172 of 425

we identified the best performing sources, we then calculated 

the MACT floor in units of lb/ton or ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 (as 

applicable) as described in section VI.E of this preamble.

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

The EPA must consider available emissions information to 

determine the MACT floors. For Hg, PM (as a surrogate for total 

non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans, we calculated the MACT 

floor for a subcategory of sources by ranking all the available 

emissions data for units within the subcategory with the best 

performing sources ranked at the top, as described later in this 

section and then using the test results from the best performing

sources (up to five). Therefore, as discussed in section VI.D of 

this preamble, the MACT floor limits for Hg, PM (as a surrogate 

for total non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans were calculated 

based on the performance of the best performing sources in each 

of the subcategories.

The best performing sources were determined by ranking each 

source’s average emission value from lowest to highest. We then 

determined the data distribution of the dataset made up of the 

top five best performers using kurtosis and skewness, as 

described in section IV.E of this preamble. We assessed 

variability of the best performers by calculating a UPL using 

the appropriate equation based on the data distribution. The UPL 
Page 173 of 425

takes into consideration the average performance of the unit and 

the variability of the test runs during the testing conditions. 

As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the UPL 

represents the value which one can expect the mean of a 

specified number of future observations (e.g., 3-run average) to 

fall below for the specified level of confidence, based upon the 

results of an independent sample from the same population. It is 

a standard statistical methodology used to account for 

variability.

A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, 

including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of 

kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

We also compared the appropriate 3xRDL value to the 

calculated UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory. As 

described in section IV.E of this preamble, we used the greater 

of the 3xRDL value and calculated UPL value to ensure that 

measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT 

floor emissions limit. This check was part of the variability 

analysis for all existing MACT floors that had BDL or DLL run 

data present in the best performing datasets (see the technical 

memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor 
Page 174 of 425

Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290).

As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in 

setting floors, not only because variability is an element of 

performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best 

performance over time. We believe this approach reasonably 

ensures that the emission limits selected as the MACT floors 

adequately represent the level of emissions actually achieved by 

the average of the best performing units, considering 

operational variability of those units. Both the analysis of the 

measured emissions from units representative of the best 

performers and the variability analysis are reasonably designed 

to provide a meaningful estimate of the average performance or

central tendency, of the best performing five units in a given 

subcategory. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology 

is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

Table 10 of this preamble presents the average emission 

level of the best performing sources and the existing source 

MACT floor. Each subcategory had less than 30 sources 

nationwide; thus, the top five sources were used in the MACT 

floor. If we had data for less than five sources, we used all 
Page 175 of 425

the data available. The existing source MACT floors are based on 

the UPL unless otherwise noted.

Table 10—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics 

Existing Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter

Hgb

(lb/ton)

PMb,c

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)

Floor tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of best performing

sources

7.8 E-05 0.054 2.9

MACT floor 1.3 E-04 0.18 4.6

Floor tile 

press dryers

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- -- 0.078 

MACT floor -- -- 0.19d

Floor tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- -- 0.96 

MACT floor -- -- 44

Wall tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of best performing

sources

5.0 E-05 0.071 0.065

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- -- 0.053

MACT floor -- -- 0.12d

Tile glaze 

lines

Avg. of best performing

sources

2.0 E-05 0.67 --

MACT floor 1.6 E-04d 1.9 --

First-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

Avg. of best performing

sources

1.6 E-04 0.12 0.81

MACT floor 2.6 E-04 0.33 1.5

Sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- 14 --

MACT floor -- 33 --

Sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- 5.9 --

MACT floor -- 12 --

Sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- 4.4 --

MACT floor -- 8.8 --

a The existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton 

glaze sprayed.

c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.
Page 176 of 425

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

The approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for 

new sources is described in section IV.F of this preamble. This 

approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit selected as 

the MACT floor adequately represents the average level of 

control actually achieved in practice by the best controlled 

similar source, considering ordinary operational variability. A 

detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

Table 11 of this preamble presents, for each subcategory 

and pollutant, the average emission level of the best performing

similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.

Table 11—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics New 

Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter

Hgb

(lb/ton)

PMb,c

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)

Floor tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of top performer 3.5 E-05 0.020 1.1

MACT floor 3.9 E-05 0.027 1.5

Floor tile 

press dryers

Avg. of top performer -- -- 0.070

MACT floor -- -- 0.19d

Floor tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of top performer -- -- 0.010

MACT floor -- -- 0.17d

Wall tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of top performer 5.0 E-05 0.071 0.065

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of top performer -- -- 0.053

MACT floor -- -- 0.12d
Page 177 of 425

Subcategory Parameter

Hgb

(lb/ton)

PMb,c

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)

Tile glaze 

lines

Avg. of top performer 7.4 E-06 0.15 --

MACT floor 1.6 E-04d 0.61 --

First-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

Avg. of top performer 6.4 E-05 0.092 0.23

MACT floor 1.2 E-04 0.095 0.37

Sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

Avg. of top performer -- 3.3 --

MACT floor -- 3.8 --

Sanitaryware 

spray 

machine 

glaze 

application

Avg. of top performer -- 2.0 --

MACT floor -- 3.2 --

Sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

Avg. of top performer -- 1.3 --

MACT floor -- 2.2 --

a The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton 

glaze sprayed.

c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, there are 

specific considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For 

the clay ceramics source category, we have limited datasets for 

the following pollutants and subcategories: 

• Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new floor tile roller kilns;

• dioxins/furans for new floor tile press dryers;

• dioxins/furans for new floor tile spray dryers;

• Hg and dioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile roller 

kilns;

• dioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile spray dryers;

• Hg and PM for new tile glaze lines;

• Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns; and
Page 178 of 425

• PM for new sanitaryware manual, spray machine, and robot 

glaze spray booths.

For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the 

memorandum titled “Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction 

Limit to Limited Datasets,” which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; see that memorandum for more information 

on the analysis and the results.

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing

sources?

As discussed in sections II.A and VI.D of this preamble, 

the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements 

that are more stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-thefloor control options). When considering beyond-the-floor 

options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, 

energy and non-air quality health and environmental impacts when 

doing so. Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for 

each subcategory, we considered various regulatory options more 

stringent than the MACT floor level of control (e.g., the 

performance of technologies that could result in lower 

emissions) for the different subcategories.

We considered requiring each subcategory of existing 

sources to meet the new source MACT floors developed as 

described in section VI.F of this preamble. We analyzed the 
Page 179 of 425

beyond-the-floor options for each pollutant separately for each 

subcategory of existing sources. Our analyses are documented in 

the technical memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission 

Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP” in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and summarized in the following paragraphs.

For Hg from existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns, based on 

the data available, we estimate that all existing tunnel kilns 

could meet the new source MACT floor emission limits described 

in section VI.F of this preamble without incurring additional 

emission control costs. Therefore, we are proposing a beyondthe-floor Hg limit for existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns 

equivalent to the new source MACT floor.

For several sources and pollutants, the existing source 

MACT floor and the new source MACT floor are the same value, 

usually because there is only one source with data in the 

subcategory or because both floors are based on the 3xRDL value. 

These sources/pollutants include dioxins/furans from floor tile 

press dryers, PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals), 

Hg and dioxins/furans from wall tile roller kilns, 

dioxins/furans from wall tile spray dryers and Hg from ceramic 

tile glaze lines. Therefore, we are not proposing beyond-thefloor limits for these sources and pollutants.

The incremental costs, emission reductions and cost 

effectiveness for all other beyond-the-floor options are 
Page 180 of 425

summarized by subcategory and by pollutant in Table 12 of this 

preamble. In all these cases, we have concluded that the 

incremental costs of additional control above the MACT floor 

emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of 

emission reduction achieved. Therefore, we are not proposing to 

go beyond-the-floor for any of the subcategory/pollutant 

concentrations included in Table 12 of this preamble.

Table 12-Summary of Costs, Emissions Reductions and Cost 

Effectiveness for Selected Clay Ceramics Beyond-the-Floor 

Options (2011 dollars)

Subcategory Pollutant

Cost (million) Incremental 

HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tpy)

Cost Effectiveness 

Capital Annual ($/ton total HAP)

Floor tile 

roller kilns

Hg $4.14 $3.16 0.044 $71,800,000

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$10.8 $4.28 0.73 $5,830,000

Dioxins/ 

furans

$2.32 $1.77 8.5 E-07 $2,080,000,000,000

Floor tile 

spray dryers

Dioxins/ 

furans

$0.335 $0.278 4.6 E-08 $5,990,000,000,000

Tile glaze 

lines

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$7.67 $2.70 0.038 $70,600,000

First-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$3.91 $2.01 0.020 $102,000,000

Dioxins/ 

furans

$2.98 $1.78 3.4 E-08 $51,700,000,000,00

0

Sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$6.78 $2.19 0.24 $9,090,000

Sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$1.89 $0.900 0.14 $6,420,000

Sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$4.97 $2.22 0.097 $23,000,000
Page 181 of 425

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

The MACT floor level of control for each subcategory of new 

sources for each pollutant was based on the emission control 

that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar 

source within each of the subcategories. When we establish a 

beyond-the-floor standard, we typically identify control 

techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit 

more stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were 

identified that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the 

new source floors for any of the subcategories for each 

pollutant. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a beyond-thefloor limit for any of the new sources in this proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule.

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

In developing the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule, we considered whether it was appropriate to establish 

health-based emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for 

the acid gases HF and HCl. The rationale for the development of 

health-based standards for the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule is the same as that presented for the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, with a few exceptions, which 

are discussed in the sections below. The rationale for the 
Page 182 of 425

development of health-based standards for the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule is discussed in section IV.J of this 

preamble.

1. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its 

discretion whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard?

Section IV.J of this preamble discusses the following 

factors that the EPA considers in making a judgment whether to 

set a standard based on the health threshold or the traditional 

MACT process:

• The availability of data to set the health-based standard;

• Co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, 

such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or 

criteria pollutants;

• The potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the 

pollutant; and

• The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to 

concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with 

similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other 

source categories, where the concentration of the threshold 

pollutant emitted from the given source category is below 

the threshold.

The evaluation of the first three factors (availability of 

data, co-benefits and potential ecosystem impacts) are nearly 

identical for both the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. 

However, further analysis was required concerning the last 

factor (potential for cumulative adverse health effects). The 

evaluation of all four factors for the clay ceramics industry is 

provided below.
Page 183 of 425

a. Availability of Data to Determine Standard

Like the BSCP manufacturing rule, because of the relatively 

small number of facilities compared to other rules such as the 

Boiler MACT proposal, the EPA was able to determine facilityspecific information for the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, 

including tunnel and roller kiln locations and operating 

characteristics and stack parameters, available for all clay 

ceramics facilities to assess the feasibility of health-based 

standards in this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. 

Such information enabled us to conduct the dispersion modeling 

necessary to establish a health-based emission limit for acid 

gases.55

Consequently, we have concluded that we have enough 

information to determine the health-based emission standards for

the acid gases HF and HCl for the clay ceramics industry. As 

discussed in further detail below, these limits have been 

developed to ensure that exposure is below the health threshold 

for each facility and also ensure that acute exposures will not 

pose any health concerns.56

 55 For more information, see the technical memorandum “Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290. 56 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 (September 9, 

2010) (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short-term emissions of 

HCl from cement kilns which might allow us to determine whether a chronic 

health-based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will 

not pose health concerns.”)
Page 184 of 425

b. Co-benefits

The additional nationwide SO2 reductions that would be 

attributable to Clay Ceramics MACT standards for acid gases are 

estimated to be 31 tpy in the third year following promulgation 

of the proposed standards. Similar to BSCP, this reduction is 

substantially lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for 

other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a 

health-based limit,57 and it would not be expected to provide a 

significant public health benefit in the circumstances here.

c. Ecosystem Impacts

For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the 

acid gases HCl and HF around each clay ceramics facility. For 

 57 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970 (September 9, 2010) –

Co-benefits was identified as the “decisive factor” in the Portland Cement 

NESHAP Final Rule. 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. There, EPA declined to set a healthbased standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other 

HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO2 and other HAP 

gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO2 alone 

attributable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons 

per year” and discussing both direct SO2 effects and effects of SO2 as a 

precursor to PM2.5) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl2), 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride (HF))] are also controlled 

during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet 

scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when 

considering a health-based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT 

Final Rule, 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this 

issue and continues to believe that the co-benefits are significant and 

provide an additional basis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not 

appropriate to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler 

MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010) – Co-benefits from MACT 

standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 

340,000 tons per year of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP 

acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and mercury. See also MATS Proposed Rule, 76 FR 

24976, 25051/1 – Co-benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate 

for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO2 and 

unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and 

mercury.
Page 185 of 425

HCl, the environmental risk screen indicated that the areaweighted average modeled concentrations of HCl around each 

facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the 

ecological benchmark. In addition, the ecological benchmark was 

not exceeded at any offsite receptor location for any facility.

For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 

area-weighted average modeled concentrations of HF around each 

facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the 

ecological benchmarks. There were multiple facilities with 

modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that 

exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the 

value was exceeded was no greater than one percent of the 

offsite modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there 

would not be any significant or widespread environmental 

effects.

d. Cumulative Effects

As noted previously, the EPA may consider the availability

of information on emissions from co-located and nearby sources 

and consider if it is feasible to determine the potential 

cumulative health effects from emissions from the sources in the 

category when combined with other emissions from other sources 

that are co-located or located nearby. Relevant emissions may 
Page 186 of 425

include both emissions of the same pollutant and emissions of 

other pollutants that may cause cumulative effects.

Through industry responses to the clay ceramics 2008 EPA 

survey and the 2010 EPA survey, we have substantial information 

on the locations of clay ceramics plants and the levels of HF 

and HCl emitted from those plants. While the major source 

ceramic tile plants are not co-located with any other type of 

operation, the three major source sanitaryware plants are. 

However, the sources co-located with the sanitaryware plants do 

not emit acid gases. The metal foundry plant co-located with the 

sanitaryware plant in Kohler, Wisconsin emits chiefly 

particulates and metals, while the fiberglass plants co-located 

with the sanitaryware plants in Spartanburg, South Carolina and 

Brownwood, Texas emit chiefly organic HAP (styrene). 

Consequently, any acid gas emissions from co-located sources are 

not expected to impact the total facility acid gas emissions 

significantly.

Like BSCP facilities, clay ceramics facilities are 

typically located on large tracts of land needed for all of the 

processes involved in clay ceramics manufacturing, including raw 

material receiving, storage and processing; glaze preparation; 

forming; drying; glazing; firing; product inspection; and 

packaging. This provides an additional buffer between the clay 

ceramics plants and the surrounding area. Because of the 
Page 187 of 425

relatively low plume heights, maximum risks from the clay 

ceramics plants are located close to the facility property line. 

In trying to define cumulative risks from nearby non-clay 

ceramics emissions, the location and emissions associated with 

other sources not in the clay ceramics source category are far 

less certain. While the 2008 EPA survey and the 2010 EPA survey

data for clay ceramics facilities have been reviewed by EPA 

engineers and scientists, the emissions levels and locations of 

nearby other facilities such as those in the NEI have not 

undergone the same level of detailed review. Thus, a 

quantitative analysis of nearby emissions may contain 

significant of uncertainty. However, as discussed above, because 

of the large footprint of clay ceramic facilities and the clay 

ceramics risks being confined to the near plant locations, we do 

not expect that the combined emissions of HF or HCl from clay 

ceramics facilities and nearby other sources would result in 

substantial cumulative health and environmental effects.

2. How did the EPA set the level of the standard?

As with BSCP, the EPA is proposing to exercise its 

discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is 

consistent with the EPA’s prior decisions where we found it 

appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the 

authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, because the 

circumstances in this case differ from those previous 
Page 188 of 425

considerations. We request comment on the analysis and 

conclusions regarding setting health-based standards.

Following from the EPA’s determination that a health-based

standard is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health 

effects on which the threshold is based.

• There must be no observable adverse effect.

• The standard must not allow greater adverse environmental 

effects as the MACT standard that would otherwise be 

established.

• A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from 

compliance based on a showing that the source’s emissions 

do not pose a health risk.

As part of the development of the proposed standards, we 

have maintained an inventory of major source facilities, 

including the size and operating hours of each tunnel and roller 

kiln and the geographic location and physical attributes (e.g., 

stack height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each kiln stack. 

To develop a health-based emission limit, both long-term and 

short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks 

from the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category were 

estimated using the HEM-3 model as described in section IV.J.3

of this preamble. Further information on the overall modeling 

approach is presented in the technical memorandum, “Risk 

Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for 

Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category” 

in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
Page 189 of 425

In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we 

used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of 

each acid gas emitted by each source in the source category. The 

air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were 

used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 

concentration for all the people who reside in that census 

block. Chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed by 

comparing a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio. 

Because we performed HEM-3 model runs for each acid gas 

individually, we did not aggregate HQ values of different acid 

gases. Of course, multiple acid gas pollutants are emitted at 

clay ceramics facilities, but a 600 tpy level of HCl-equivalent 

emissions (based on the HEM risks modeling) ensures that a TOSHI 

of 1 is not exceeded, as long as the HCl-equivalent emissions do 

not exceed 600 tpy. It is important to note that this emission 

limit is only applicable to the sources in this source category 

and should not be considered for sources other than those 

included in this analysis. Equivalent emissions for HF are 

determined by the ratio of the chronic RfC to that for HCl, such 

that the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF are 420 tpy.

Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic 

dose-response values, the 600 tpy level does not necessarily 

ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the 

HCl model runs, there were no facilities with acute screening HQ 
Page 190 of 425

values exceeding 1. For HF, we estimate that two of the eight 

facilities examined had an acute value exceed the REL with the 

highest being two. However, no facility exceeded an HQ (AEGL-1) 

value for HF. To assure that no source emits more than the 600 

tpy HCl-equivalent limit in a single hour, we propose setting 

the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 600 tpy (140 

lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions).

It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds 

are developed from back-calculating the emissions that would 

result in an HQ of 1 at the worst-case facility. Potential risks 

at other facilities (not the worst-case facility) are predicted 

to be well below 1.

Because we had site-specific data on the operation of each 

tunnel and roller kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling 

to ensure that: (1) the health-based emission limit cited above 

for clay ceramics facilities provides an ample margin of safety 

and (2) persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not 

experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold is 

based. In addition, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas 

emissions associated with clay ceramics kilns, based on results 

from the EPA’s environmental risk screen methodology outlined 

above, are not expected to have an adverse environmental impact.

Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the healthbased emission limit by determining their facility-wide HCl and 
Page 191 of 425

HF emissions, calculating the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF 

using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the HClequivalent value to calculate the total HCl-equivalent 

emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided 

in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. For more 

information on the development of the health-based standard, see 

the technical memorandum “Risk Assessment to Determine a HealthBased Emissions Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290. For more information on the calculation of an HClequivalent value, see the technical memorandum “Development of 

Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics

NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice 

standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not 

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The EPA 

is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns is not feasible because the 

application of measurement methodology to these sources is not 

practicable due to technological and economic limitations. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing a work practice standard for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns in lieu of emission limits for acid 
Page 192 of 425

gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP metals. The rationale for 

this work practice standard is discussed in the paragraphs 

below.

1. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of 

Emission Standards

a. Overview

Shuttle kilns at sanitaryware facilities are a type of 

periodic kiln used primarily to refire rejected pieces that have 

been machined and reglazed (although some shuttle kilns are used 

as first-fire units). Shuttle kilns are designed with a 

removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using 

hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress. The main 

advantage of this type of kiln is that it can readily 

accommodate changes in firing temperature profile and cycle time 

to match the requirements of a wide variety of ceramic products. 

The primary disadvantage of this type of kiln is much higher 

energy costs per ton when compared to tunnel kilns and roller 

kilns.58

Shuttle kilns are batch operated, meaning that a batch 

starts cold and ends cold. The sanitaryware industry operates 

shuttle kilns on batch cycle times of 18 to 38 hours, with the 

most common cycle times between 22 and 30 hours. As shuttle 

 58 See the memorandum titled “Characterization of the Ceramic Manufacturing 

Industry” in the original Clay Ceramics NESHAP docket, incorporated by 

reference into the docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking.
Page 193 of 425

kilns operate through a heating cycle, temperatures are either 

in ramp-up or cool-down mode.59

b. Emissions and Testing

Emission rates can vary over the batch cycle due to the 

temperature cycle of the kiln. In order to accurately determine 

the total emissions from a shuttle kiln cycle, emissions from 

the entire cycle period would need to be tested.60 As with 

testing BSCP periodic kilns, testing sanitaryware shuttle kilns 

for any less time could result in estimated emissions that are 

either higher or lower than actual emissions, depending on when 

during the kiln cycle the emissions are sampled.61

Conducting a shuttle kiln test on even the shortest cycle 

time would require a test crew to be on site for at least 24 

hours and would require the test team to have at least a dozen 

or more sampling train set-ups or additional manpower on site to 

recover samples and turn-around sampling trains for subsequent 

use during the test. It is estimated that the test of a single 

shuttle kiln firing cycle with analysis would cost $20,000 or 

more (2009 dollars). As with BSCP periodic kilns, sampling a 

single firing cycle might not be adequate for characterizing 

 59 See the email titled “Kohler’s response to EPA question regarding options 

for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) should be addressed,” in the 

docket for this proposed rule.

60 Id. 61 See the memorandum entitled “Rationale for Establishing Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
Page 194 of 425

shuttle kiln emissions, due to variations during firing cycles 

and variations across tests. To collect three test runs of data, 

two additional cycles would need to be tested, bringing the cost 

to $60,000 or more (2009 dollars) to test a single shuttle kiln.

Furthermore, the sanitaryware facilities covered under this 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule have three or more 

shuttle kilns each, requiring additional tests at each 

facility.62

c. Test Methods and Costs

As noted in section VI.K.1.a of this preamble, when EPA

Method 26 or 26A is used, breakthrough of HCl can occur if 

emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears 

to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns. Testing of sanitaryware 

shuttle kilns could encounter a similar problem. Another 

disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for testing throughout 

shuttle kiln cycles is the need for additional manpower to 

operate the sampling trains around the clock and to recover 

samples.63

An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduct the 

tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320, where HCl 

breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides 

 62 See the sanitaryware industry communication titled “Kohler’s response to 

EPA question regarding options for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) 

should be addressed,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290. 63 See the RTI memorandum titled “Rationale for Establishing Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
Page 195 of 425

near real-time emissions data. However, the cost for FTIR 

testing would be similarly expensive as testing by Method 26 or 

26A throughout an entire cycle. The cost for testing by FTIR is 

estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50-hour kiln 

cycle (the average cycle time for a BSCP periodic kiln). 

Assuming a 50 percent reduction in cost for an average 25-hour 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln cycle, the cost to test one cycle 

would still be substantial (nearly $25,000 (2009 dollars)). If 

it were determined that the variations in emissions from cycle 

to cycle were significant, it might be necessary to test each 

kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a representative 

emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would double the 

testing cost to almost $50,000 and testing for a third cycle 

would triple the cost to almost $75,000 (2009 dollars). In 

addition to these costs, additional costs would be incurred for 

testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would have to be 

tested using a manual test method (e.g., EPA Methods 5 or 17). 

If additional shuttle kilns needed to be tested at each 

facility, the costs would be even higher.64

While no formal cost-to-sales analysis was conducted for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns like the one conducted for BSCP 

periodic kilns (see section IV.K.1 of this preamble), a similar 

 64 Id.
Page 196 of 425

informal analysis was performed using the sales and production 

data provided in the 2008 EPA survey responses (claimed as CBI 

by the respondent). Based on this analysis, a similar conclusion 

(that testing is not economically feasible) can be reached.

Because the test costs are similar and shuttle kilns represent a 

small share of total sanitaryware production and revenues, the 

EPA has concluded that it would not be economically feasible to 

require testing for shuttle kilns.

d. Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Shuttle Kilns

CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may 

prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, 

consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in 

those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is 

not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA section 

112(h)(2)(B) further defines the term “not feasible” in this 

context to apply when “the application of measurement technology 

to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations.”

Because of the technological and economic limitations 

described above, we conclude that it is not practicable to 

establish numerical emission limits for sanitaryware shuttle 

kilns. Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit 

for shuttle kilns is technologically limited to testing

procedures that are economically infeasible for the sanitaryware 
Page 197 of 425

industry. Consequently, we are proposing a work practice 

standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns under CAA section 

112(h).

2. Work Practice Standard

The work practice standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns 

proposed in today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes 

the following specific provisions:65

• Each facility would have to use natural gas or equivalent

as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas 

curtailment or supply interruption.

• Each facility would have to develop and use a designed 

firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced 

in the shuttle kiln, by programming the time and 

temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on 

a log sheet.

• Each facility would have to label each shuttle kiln with 

the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln 

during a single firing cycle.

• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the 

maximum load and each facility would have to document the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to show that it is not 

greater than the maximum load.

• Each facility would have to develop and implement 

maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the 

frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following 

items:

o Calibration of temperature measuring devices

o Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios

o Controls that regulate firing cycles

• Each facility would have to develop and maintain records 

required for each shuttle kiln, including logs to document 

the proper operation of the shuttle kilns and logs of the 

maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with 

the standard.

 65 See the BSCP industry communication titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the 

docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking.
Page 198 of 425

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

As stated in section V.E of this preamble, we are proposing 

work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for 

ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile 

spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns. We are not proposing 

alternate standards for periods of startup and shutdown for 

ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths.

As noted in section V.B of this preamble, roller and tunnel 

kilns and dryers typically operate continuously, so startups and 

shutdowns are infrequent. Startup of a roller or tunnel kiln 

involves starting up the burners based on a set procedure to 

raise the temperature of the kiln to the proper operational 

temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics. Shutdown of a 

roller or tunnel kiln is the process of cooling the kiln from 

the proper operational temperature by stopping the burners based 

on a set procedure. Similarly, startup and shutdown of a dryer 

is the process of raising the temperature to the proper 

operational temperature or lowering the temperature from the 

proper operational temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics. 

When the temperature of the kiln or dryer is below the proper 

operational temperature, ceramic tile and sanitaryware 

manufacturers typically do not push ceramics into the kiln, so 
Page 199 of 425

the emissions are expected to be much lower during startup and 

shutdown than during normal operations.

While a kiln or dryer is heating to the proper operational 

temperature during startup or cooling from the operational 

temperature during shutdown, other parameters such as exhaust 

flow rate, moisture content, O2 concentration and pressure are 

also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may 

not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown 

progresses, as the kiln or dryer does not heat or cool evenly. 

The fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with 

the relatively steady-state conditions needed for valid, 

accurate results over three test runs using the measurement 

methods proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance. Even if

testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, the emission 

limit formats chosen for this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule are not appropriate for use during periods 

other than normal operation. Specifically, if there is no 

throughout in the kiln or dryer, emission limits that are in a 

mass per throughput format would be essentially meaningless.

We did not receive any detailed information through the 

2010 EPA survey about the startup or shutdown of ceramic tile 

roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns. However, ceramic tile roller kilns 

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns are fired at similar or slightly 
Page 200 of 425

higher temperatures to BSCP tunnel kilns and they would likely 

use similar APCD to comply with the standards. Therefore, we 

expect that the issues described in section IV.E of this 

preamble associated with venting low-temperature kiln exhaust 

through an APCD on a BSCP tunnel kiln would also apply to an 

APCD on a ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer,

ceramic tile spray dryer or sanitaryware tunnel kiln. We also 

expect that the low temperature set points would be about the 

same as for BSCP tunnel kilns, as those temperatures are based 

on the tolerance of the APCD.

Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, 

floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and

sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or 

operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or 

dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature reaches 400 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other 

product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or 

dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is 

being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or 

operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or 

dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no ceramics or 

other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer once the 
Page 201 of 425

kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the 

exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. When the 

kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the 

owner or operator would be required to comply with the 

applicable continuous compliance requirements described in 

section V.G of this preamble.

For ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers,

ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns that can 

meet the proposed standards without an APCD, there are no 

concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures for bypassing an 

APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data through the 2010 

EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of uncontrolled kilns. 

However, as noted above, we recognize that it is not feasible to 

conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown.

Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for periods 

of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns or 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no 

ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer 

until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For 

shutdown, no ceramics or other product may be put into the kiln 

or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 

°F. When there are ceramics in the kiln or dryer, the owner or 

operator would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the 
Page 202 of 425

emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this 

preamble).

We are not proposing alternate standards (either work 

practice standards or an alternate numeric emission limit) for 

periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected 

to comply with the emissions limitations (as described in 

section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the source is 

operating, including periods of startup and shutdown. We did not 

receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey suggesting that 

alternate standards for periods of startup and shutdown are 

needed for these sources. Glazing operations are intermittent in 

nature during normal operations, so emissions during startup and 

shutdown would not be expected to be different than emissions 

during normal operations.

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that 

are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the 

requirements of this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. 

These requirements are described in detail in sections V.F and

V.G of this preamble. We selected these requirements based upon 

our determination of the information necessary to ensure that 

the emission standards are being met and the work practices are 

being followed and that APCD and equipment are maintained and 
Page 203 of 425

operated properly. Further, these proposed requirements ensure 

compliance with this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule

without imposing a significant additional burden for facilities 

that must implement them.

We are proposing that initial compliance with the emission 

limits for HF, HCl, PM, Hg and dioxins/furans be demonstrated by 

an initial performance test. The proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule would also require 5-year repeat performance 

tests to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating 

properly and that its performance has not deteriorated.

The majority of test methods that this proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule would require for the performance 

stack tests (e.g., EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required 

under many other EPA standards. Many of the emissions tests upon 

which the proposed emission limits are based were conducted 

using these test methods.

When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that 

parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To 

ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits, 

the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would require 

continuous parameter monitoring of the kilns and APCD and 

maintaining these parameters within the operating limits 

established during the performance test. We selected these 

parameter monitoring requirements because they produce data that 
Page 204 of 425

will be useful to both the owners or operators and the EPA for 

ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and/or 

operating limits and because of their reasonable cost and ease 

of execution.

The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed 

rule were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the clay 

ceramics industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the 

proposed emission limits. These parameters include lime 

injection rate (on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF 

and DLS/FF; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and chemical 

addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; activated 

carbon flow rate for ACI systems; periodic inspections for water 

curtains; and annual inspections for baffles. If applicable for 

demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl standard, the kiln 

monitoring parameter included in the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule is the kiln process rate. To demonstrate 

compliance with the dioxin/furan standard for those affected 

sources without an ACI system, the monitoring parameter included 

in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is the 

operating temperature for the affected process (tunnel or roller 

kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer), because 

the formation and destruction of dioxins/furans are influenced 

by temperature conditions. Many of these CPMS are standard 

features on ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel 
Page 205 of 425

kilns and their associated APCD and have also been used in other 

standards for similar industries.

In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for 

kilns equipped with a FF (e.g., a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand-alone 

FF) to either install a BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to the 

CPMS being proposed, BLD systems have also been used in other 

standards in similar industries. We have also determined that 

periodic VE checks are a reasonable alternative to BLD systems

for this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. Periodic VE 

checks have also been proposed for affected sources without an 

add-on control to demonstrate continuous compliance.

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which 

affected sources must comply with the emission standards. Under 

CAA section 112(i)(1), new or reconstructed units must be in 

compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or 

the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. (The

final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is 

expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register.)
Page 206 of 425

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), existing sources are allowed 

up to 3 years after the effective date of the rule to comply 

with the final rule. For this industry, we believe that 3 years 

for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, 

install and test any control systems that may need to be 

retrofitted onto existing sources, as well as obtain permits for 

the use of add-on controls.

The compliance data for existing area sources that 

subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 

63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such sources have 3 years from 

the date they become major sources to come into compliance, 

which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing 

sources discussed in the previous paragraph. Further, under the 

current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source 

becomes a major source by the addition of equipment or 

operations that meet the definition of new affected source under 

this rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new 

affected source must be in compliance upon initial startup.

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

We are proposing that owner/operators would be required to 

comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 9

of the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. We evaluated 
Page 207 of 425

the General Provisions requirements and included those we 

determined to be the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

necessary to ensure compliance with and effective enforcement 

of, this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep 

records on the firing time and temperature cycle for each 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln, the type of product fired in each 

batch and the amount of product fired in the shuttle kiln, to 

address the operational factors that impact HAP emissions from 

shuttle kilns and demonstrate compliance with the work practice 

standard for shuttle kilns (discussed further in section VI.K.1 

of this preamble).

In addition, we are proposing that the owner or operator

keep records and submit a report of each malfunction and the 

corrective action taken as part of the next semiannual 

compliance report. The proposed compliance report would provide 

information on each type of malfunction which occurred during 

the reporting period and which caused or may have caused an 

exceedance of an emission limit.

This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule also 

includes a requirement for electronic reporting of performance 

test data, which is discussed further in section III.I of this 

preamble.
Page 208 of 425

We request comment on ways that we could streamline the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule by relying on existing business 

practices.

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

The CAA requires that sources subject to this Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule, once finalized, be operated pursuant to a 

permit issued under an EPA-approved State operating permit 

program. The operating permit programs are developed under title 

V of the CAA and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 

70 and 71. If the facility is operating in the first 3 years of 

an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to obtain a 

revised permit to incorporate the requirements of this Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule. If the facility is in the last 2 

years of an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to 

incorporate the requirements of this Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule into the next renewal of the permit.

VII. Summary of the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the cost and emissions reduction impacts?

Table 13 of this preamble illustrates the costs and 

emissions reductions for existing sources under the BSCP 

manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule.
Page 209 of 425

Table 13-Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for BSCP and 

Clay Ceramics Existing Sourcesa (2011 dollars)

Industry

Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy)

Capital Annual HF HCl Cl2

Non-Hg 

HAP 

metalsb Hg PM PM2.5 SO2

BSCP $55.9 $19.0 410 24.0 2.09 3.79 0.0590 359 172 255

Clay 

Ceramics

$0.102 $0.0458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring. b Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, nickel and selenium. c PM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter.

The nationwide capital and annual costs of the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule are expected to total $55.9 million and 

$19.0 million, respectively (2011 dollars). The nationwide HAP 

emissions reductions achieved under the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule are expected to total 440 tpy. The 

methodology used to estimate the nationwide costs and emissions 

reductions of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is presented 

in the technical memoranda titled “Development of Cost and 

Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP” and “Monitoring 

and Testing Requirements and Costs for the BSCP NESHAP” in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points 

will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule, so no emission control costs or 

emissions reductions are expected for these sources. However, 

these facilities will incur monitoring and testing costs to 
Page 210 of 425

demonstrate compliance with the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule. These costs are documented in the technical 

memorandum titled “Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs 

for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290.

There are no major sources producing ceramic tile. The five

facilities that were major sources at the time of the 2008 and 

2010 EPA surveys have already taken the necessary steps to 

become synthetic area sources. Consequently, none of the known 

tile facilities will be subject to the provisions of the Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule, which means that no costs or 

emissions reductions are expected for tile affected sources

under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. We request 

comment on whether we need to finalize the standards for ceramic 

tile manufacturing even though there currently are no major 

sources.

B. What are the secondary impacts?

Table 14 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts 

for existing sources under the BSCP and Clay Ceramics proposed 

rule.

Table 14—Summary of Secondary Impacts for BSCP and Clay Ceramics 

Existing Sourcesa

Control option

Secondary air emissions (tpy)

Energy 

impacts 

(MMBtu/yr)

Solid 

waste 

impacts 

PM PM2.5 CO NOX SO2 (tpy)

BSCP 1.93 0.646 3.60 28.0 81.7 268,000 8,630
Page 211 of 425

Clay Ceramics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a PM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter; CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; MMBtu/yr = million 

British thermal units per year.

The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the 

BSCP manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule 

includes secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste 

impacts. Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that 

result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 

operation of APCD to meet the proposed limits (i.e., increased 

secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). 

Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate the 

APCD and solid waste impacts consist of the particulate captured 

by the APCD that is disposed of as waste (not reused or 

recycled).

Under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, the nationwide 

secondary emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, carbon 

monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2 are expected to 

total 115 tpy, with energy impacts of 268,000 million British 

thermal units per year (MMBtu/yr) and solid waste impacts of

8,630 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide 

secondary impacts of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is 

presented in the technical memorandum “Development of Cost and 

Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP” in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
Page 212 of 425

As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that 

all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor 

emission limits in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule, so there are no secondary impacts expected for these 

sources. There are no major sources producing ceramic tile. The

five facilities that were major sources at the time of the 2008 

and 2010 EPA surveys have already taken the necessary steps to 

become synthetic area sources. Consequently, none of the known 

ceramic tile facilities are expected to be subject to the 

provisions of the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, which means

that no secondary impacts are expected for ceramic tile affected 

sources under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

C. What are the economic impacts?

For the BSCP Manufacturing source category, the average 

national brick price under the proposed standards increases by 

1.4 percent or $3.29 per 1,000 Standard Brick Equivalent (SBE)

(2011 dollars), while overall domestic production falls by 1.1

percent or 38 million bricks per year. Under the proposed 

standards, the EPA estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing 

facilities are at significant risk of closure.

Based on the results of the small entity screening analysis

for BSCP Manufacturing, the EPA concluded that it is not able to 

certify that the BSCP manufacturing rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As 
Page 213 of 425

a result, the EPA initiated a SBAR Panel and undertook an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).

For clay ceramics manufacturing, one sanitaryware company 

owns major sources and will incur costs. That affected company 

is not a small business. The compliance costs are less than 

0.001 percent of sales for the affected company. Hence, the 

economic impact for compliance is minimal. Because no small 

firms face significant control costs, there is no significant 

impact on small entities. Thus, the proposed Clay Ceramics 

regulation is not expected to have significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.

For more information on the benefits analysis and market 

analyses, please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)

for the BSCP manufacturing rule, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,” which is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

D. What are the social costs and benefits?

Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule will generate benefits by 

reducing emissions of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and 

their precursors, NOX and SO2. SO2 and NOX are precursors to PM2.5

(particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter) and Nox is a precursor to ozone. The criteria 

pollutant benefits are considered co-benefits for this proposed 
Page 214 of 425

rule. For this proposed rule, we were only able to quantify the 

health co-benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 from 

emission reductions of SO2 and directly emitted PM2.5 because of 

methodological limitations associated with quantifying and 

monetizing HAP benefits. We estimate the monetized co-benefits 

of the proposed BSCP NESHAP in 2018 to be $52 million to $120 

million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $47 

million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-percent discount 

rate. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature 

mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co-benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates 

fall between these two estimates.66 A summary of the emission 

reduction and monetized co-benefits estimates for this proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent is in Table 15 of this preamble.

Table 15-Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP for in 2018

(millions of 2011 dollars)a,b

Pollutant

Emission 

reductions (tpy)

Total monetized cobenefits

(3 percent 

Discount)

Total monetized cobenefits

(7 percent 

Discount)

Directly 

emitted PM2.5

170 45 to 100 41 to 92

PM2.5 precursors

SO2 173 7 to 16 6 to 14

a All estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant 

 66 Roman, et al., 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of 

Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.,” Environ. Sci. 

Technol., 42, 7, 2268 – 2274.
Page 215 of 425

figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized co-benefits 

reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5

through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as SO2 and directly emitted PM2.5. 

It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do not include reduced 

health effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. b PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to 

Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing 

premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to 

allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type.

These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized 

human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from 

controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet 

this proposed rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not 

possible to conduct air quality modeling for this proposed rule. 

Instead, we used a “benefit-per-ton” approach to estimate the 

benefits of this rulemaking. To create the benefit-per-ton 

estimates, this approach uses a model to convert emissions of 

PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another 

model to estimate the changes in human health associated with 

that change in air quality, which are then divided by the 

emissions in specific sectors. These benefit-per-ton estimates 

were derived using the approach published in Fann et al. 

(2012),67 but they have since been updated to reflect the studies 

and population data in the 2012 PM National Ambient Air Quality 

 67 Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand C.M. Fulcher. 2012. “Characterizing the PM2.5-

related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and 

mobile emission sectors across the U.S.” Environment International 49 41–151.
Page 216 of 425

Standards (NAAQS) RIA.68 Specifically, we multiplied the benefitper-ton estimates from the “Non-EGU Point other” category by the 

corresponding emission reductions.69 All national-average 

benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of 

the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission 

reductions in this rulemaking and thus, they may not reflect the 

local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, 

baseline health incidence rates or other local factors for any 

specific location. More information regarding the derivation of 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for this category is available in 

the technical support document, which is available in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of 

their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing 

premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet 

sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by 

particle type. Even though we assume that all fine particles 

have equivalent health effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates 

 68 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-003. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf. 69 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical support document: 

Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5 precursors from 17 sectors.

Research Triangle Park, NC. January.
Page 217 of 425

vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude 

of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive population exposure.

It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 cobenefits is largely driven by the concentration response 

function for premature mortality. We cite two key empirical 

studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study70

and the extended Six Cities cohort study.71 In the RIA for this 

rule, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291, 

we also include benefits estimates derived from expert judgments 

(Roman et al., 2008) as a characterization of uncertainty 

regarding the PM2.5-mortality relationship.

Considering a substantial body of published scientific 

literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and

clinical studies, the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter72 documents the association between elevated 

PM2.5 concentrations and adverse health effects, including 

increased premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice 

reviewed by the EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board, 

 70 Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. 

Itoand G.D. Thurston. 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortalityand Longterm Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American 

Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 71 Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. “Chronic Exposure to Fine 

Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities 

Study from 1974 to 2009.” Environ Health Perspect. July;120(7):965-70. 72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment – RTP Division. December. Available on 

the Internet at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
Page 218 of 425

concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that 

a no-threshold model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality 

concentration-response relationship. Therefore, in this 

analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for 

fine particles is without a threshold.

In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the

risks we estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that 

coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the 

epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. 

Likewise, we are less confident in the risk we estimate from 

simulated PM2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the 

observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses 

(e.g., lowest measured level (LML) or one standard deviation 

below the mean of the air quality data in the study) allow 

readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual 

mean PM2.5 levels at or above different concentrations, which 

provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the 

estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There are uncertainties 

inherent in identifying any particular point at which our 

confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less and

the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. 

However, the EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as 

a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify 

health benefits of air quality improvements.
Page 219 of 425

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not 

available due to time or resource limitations and thus, we are 

unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each 

PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we 

provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM2.5

level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. Using the 

Krewski, et al. (2009) study, 93 percent of the population is 

exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8 

μg/m3. Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012) study, 67 percent of the 

population is exposed above the LML of 8 μg/m3. It is important 

to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the 

health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates 

population and change in air quality. Therefore, caution is 

warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule 

because these results are not consistent with results from rules 

that had air quality modeling.

Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a 

change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to 

some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as 

geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying 

scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit 

and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the 
Page 220 of 425

benefit analysis for this proposed rule provides a reasonable 

indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking 

under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not 

include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA73 because we lack the necessary air quality 

input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. In 

addition, we have not conducted air quality modeling for this 

proposed rule and using a benefit-per-ton approach adds another 

important source of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis provides an indication of the 

sensitivity of our results to various assumptions.

It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates 

provided above do not include benefits from several important 

benefit categories, including exposure to HAP, NOX and ozone 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment. Although we do not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide monetized estimates for this 

proposed rule, we include a qualitative assessment of these 

unquantified benefits in the RIA for the rule.

The specific control technologies for the proposed rule are 

anticipated to have minor secondary impacts, including an 

 73 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-003. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf.
Page 221 of 425

increase of 28 tons of NOX, less than 2 tons of PM, 3 tons of CO

and 82 tons of SO2 each year. Given the insignificant increase,

only secondary effects of PM and SO2 were included in the 

monetary evaluation of the actual benefits.

For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer 

to the RIA for this rule, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed 

Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,” which is available 

in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

VIII. Public Participation and Request for Comment

We request comment on all aspects of the proposed rule for 

BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, including 

any alternate approaches that the EPA is considering (see 

section IV.Q of this preamble for further discussion on these 

approaches).

During this rulemaking, we conducted outreach to small 

entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendation of representatives of the small entities that 

potentially would be subject to the requirements of the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule. (Note: We did not convene a SBAR Panel 

for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule because none

of the major source facilities subject to the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule are owned by a small entity.) As 

part of the SBAR Panel process, we conducted outreach with 

representatives from various small entities that would be 
Page 222 of 425

affected by the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. We met with 

these small entity representatives (SERs) to discuss the 

potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to 

decrease the impact of the BSCP manufacturing rulemaking on 

their industries/sectors. We distributed outreach materials to 

the SERs; these materials included background on the BSCP 

manufacturing rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, 

preliminary cost and economic impacts and possible rulemaking 

alternatives. We met with SERs from the BSCP industry that will 

be impacted directly by the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule to 

discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the 

approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet. The 

Panel received written comments from the SERs following the 

meeting in response to discussions at the meeting and the 

questions posed to the SERs by the agency. The SERs were 

specifically asked to provide comment on regulatory alternatives 

that could help to minimize the BSCP manufacturing rule’s impact 

on small businesses. A copy of the final Panel report is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
Page 223 of 425

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically 

significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.”

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to OMB for review 

under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the dockets for this action.

In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential

costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is 

contained in “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and 

Structural Clay Products NESHAP.” A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule

(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291) and the analysis is briefly 

summarized here.

The EPA’s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities 

will incur total annualized costs of $21 million (2011 dollars)

under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, including costs of 

emission controls, testing and monitoring, along with 

recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that have 
Page 224 of 425

testing and monitoring. Total annualized costs for the alternate 

approach are estimated to be $31 million (2011 dollars). The EPA 

gathered information on firm sales and overall industry 

profitability for firms owning affected BSCP facilities. The EPA 

estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure under the proposed standards. Under 

the alternate approach, the EPA estimated that two to six BSCP

manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the 

proposed rule, as described in section VII of this preamble.

These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of 

reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among 

populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource

and methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing 

the benefits from several important benefit categories, 

including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons 

of HAP each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as 

high as 740 tons of HAP each year through the alternate 

standards, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing 

emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, this rule would reduce 

several non-Hg HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel

and selenium) each year. The EPA estimates the total monetized 
Page 225 of 425

co-benefits to be $52 million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at 

a 3 percent discount rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 

dollars) at a 7 percent discount rate on a yearly average in 

2018 for the proposed standards.

Based on the EPA’s examination of costs and benefits of the 

proposed BSCP NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule will exceed the costs.

The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts 

associated with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. Only two 

firms are estimated to incur costs as a result of the proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule and they only incur costs 

associated with testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and

reporting. Total annualized costs are only $55,900 (2011 

dollars) and both firms’ estimated costs of complying with the 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are less than 0.001

percent of their sales.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the BSCP and 

Clay Ceramics proposed rule have been submitted for approval to 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR number 

2509.01. The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR 
Page 226 of 425

number 2510.01. The information requirements are based on 

notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions 

standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 

specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality 

is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth 

in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, the 

proposed rule includes paperwork requirements associated with

initial and 5-year repeat testing for selected process 

equipment, electronic reporting of performance test results, 

parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance 

and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with 

work practice standards and periods of malfunction.

There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major 

sources of HAP. An estimated 25 of these facilities are 

projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation 

rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 67 

facilities are expected to be subject to the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule. For these 67 facilities, the annual 
Page 227 of 425

recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the proposed 

BSCP standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 15,063 labor

hours per year, at a cost of $796,255/yr. No capital costs

associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting 

are expected to be incurred during this period. The annual 

operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $983/yr. The 

total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 

3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated 

to be 103 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $5,329 per 

year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b).

There are three clay ceramics facilities that are currently 

major sources of HAP and would be subject to the Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule that we are proposing. For these three

facilities, the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden 

associated with the Clay Ceramics standards (averaged over the 

first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is 

estimated to total 674 labor hours per year at a cost of 

$35,653/yr. As with the BSCP standards, no capital costs

associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting 

are expected to be incurred during this period. The annual 

operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $44/yr. The 

total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 
Page 228 of 425

3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated 

to be 4.6 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $239 per 

year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.)

Because BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not required 

to come into full compliance with the standards until 3 years 

after promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e.g., 

performance tests, inspections, notification of compliance 

status, compliance report, records of compliance data and 

malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following 

promulgation.

For the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, we estimate an 

average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 31,805 

labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 

through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of 

$262,119/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of 

$350,075/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of 

$612,194/yr. The average annual burden for the federal 

government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,953 hours 

per year, at a total labor cost of $207,946 per year. (All costs 

are in 2011 dollars.)

For the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, we 

estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 

1,448 labor hours per year, at a cost of $76,519/yr, for years 4 

through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of 
Page 229 of 425

$27,368/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of 

$21,101/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of 

$48,469/yr. The average annual burden for the federal government 

for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 hours per year, at 

a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs are in 2011 

dollars.)

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9.

To comment on the agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for each rule, which includes this 

ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 (for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP) and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 

(for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). Submit any 

comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this action for where 

to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required 
Page 230 of 425

to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days

after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register], a 

comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 

receives it by [insert date 30 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA’s) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 
Page 231 of 425

is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the 

proposed BSCP NESHAP are small businesses that own BSCP 

manufacturing facilities. Affected parent companies fall under 

the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 

327120) industry and the SBA (2013) defines a small business in 

this industry as a firm with fewer than 750 employees. Of 44 

parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 parent 

companies that are small businesses. Small entities affected by 

the proposed Clay Ceramics NESHAP are small businesses that own 

clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. Affected parent 

companies of ceramic tile facilities fall under the Clay 

Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) 

industry and affected parent companies of sanitaryware 

facilities fall under the Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing 

Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 327110) industry. However, we have 

determined that no small entities would be subject to the clay 

ceramics proposed standards.

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an 

IRFA that examines the impact of the proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that 

could reduce that impact. The IRFA is included in Section 5 of 

the RIA and is available for review in the docket for the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291) and is summarized below.
Page 232 of 425

1. Need for the Rule

The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish 

emission standards for each category or subcategory of major and 

area sources of HAP listed for regulation in section 112(b).

These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP 

and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In 

the Administrator’s judgment, the pollutants emitted from BSCP 

manufacturing facilities cause or contribute significantly to 

air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the BSCP source category 

are being proposed.

2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions 

standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on 

the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing 

sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions 

information) or the best performing five sources for source 

categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) 

and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as 

stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also 

must consider more stringent “beyond-the-floor” control options. 
Page 233 of 425

When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider 

not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, 

but must take into account costs, energy and nonair 

environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed 

to comply with CAA section 112(d).

3. Affected Small Entities

Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, 36 parent 

companies are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of 

estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost-to-sales 

ratio) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small 

companies. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that 

one to two small brick manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure. Under the alternate approach, two 

to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant 

risk of closure.

4. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

Respondents would be required to provide one-time and 

periodic notifications, including initial notification, 

notification of performance tests, and notification of 

compliance status. Respondents would also be required to submit 

semiannual reports documenting compliance with the rule and 

detailing any compliance issues, and they would be required to 

submit the results of performance tests to the EPA’s ERT. 

Respondents would be required to keep documentation supporting 
Page 234 of 425

information included in these notifications and reports, as well 

as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources 

and APCD at the facility.

5. Related Federal Rules 

The EPA determined that there are no related federal rules 

for this source category. 

6. Significant Alternatives

The EPA has included provisions in the proposed rule where 

possible to minimize the burden on all affected entities, 

including small entities. As required by section 609(b) of the 

RFA, as amended by Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), the EPA also conducted outreach to small 

entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations of representatives of the small entities that 

potentially would be subject to the proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule’s requirements. Seventeen SERs associated with brick 

manufacturing participated. On June 26, 2013, the SBAR Panel 

held an outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In 

addition to the materials that the SERs received for the prePanel outreach, the SERs were provided with background 

information to help them prepare for the teleconference and 

prepare their comments on the proposed rulemaking.

Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel 

evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on 
Page 235 of 425

issues related to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel 

report is included in the docket for the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291).

The SBAR made several recommendations to enhance 

flexibility for small businesses complying with the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule. The EPA adopted the panel 

recommendations to the extent feasible, as described below:

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices 

for dioxin and take comment on the feasibility of work 

practice standards for Hg and other metals. The discussion 

of work practices for Hg and other metals should clearly 

identify any areas where the agency believes that the data 

do not support work practices to allow for meaningful 

comments and also discuss work practice alternatives with 

sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as 

an alternative in the final BSCP manufacturing rule.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practices for 

dioxin/furan. Although the EPA is proposing emission limits 

for Hg and for non-Hg HAP metals, the EPA is specifically 

requesting comment in the proposal on whether or not work 

practice standards for non-Hg HAP metals and for Hg are 

appropriate.

• The panel recommended that the EPA co-propose both a 

health-based limit and MACT limits for acid gases unless 
Page 236 of 425

the EPA determines it lacks sufficient information to 

propose a numerical health-based limit.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing a health-based emission 

limit for acid gases in lieu of MACT limits.

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate 

subcategories for kilns based on size if it reduces the 

financial impact and that the EPA should take comment and 

solicit data on subcategorization based on raw materials, 

fuels and other factors.

Proposed rule: The EPA evaluated the data to determine if 

subcategories of sources were supported, including 

subcategories by kiln size. As a result, the EPA is 

proposing emission limits for Hg in two subcategories based 

on kiln size (large, small). However, although the EPA has 

the discretion to subcategorize by kiln size, the EPA 

determined it was not necessary to exercise this discretion 

for all pollutants, including total non-Hg HAP metals. 

Instead, the EPA is proposing a choice of emission limits 

for PM or total non-Hg HAP metals for all tunnel kilns. The 

ability to comply with the equivalent lb/hr total non-Hg

HAP metals limit provides additional flexibility for small 

tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in 

the PM emissions.
Page 237 of 425

• The panel recommended that the EPA specifically request 

information, at proposal, on how the presence of sawdust 

dryers would affect emissions and control costs.

Proposed rule: The proposed rule requests comment on 

whether the EPA should create a subcategory for kilns fired 

with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice 

standards for startup and shutdown.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practice standards 

for periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns.

• The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on 

12 percent of the entire source category if the EPA can 

establish that the data available to the agency represent 

the best-performing sources consistent with section 112 of 

the CAA and relevant case law.

Proposed rule: The test data for PM (the surrogate for 

total non-Hg HAP metals) showed that kilns controlled with 

a FF-based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) are the better

performers and at least 12 percent of the kilns in the 

industry are controlled with a FF-based APCD. Therefore, 

the MACT limit is based on the top 12 percent of the kilns 

in the industry (i.e., the best-performing sources with a 

FF-based APCD). However, the EPA was unable to establish 

that the data available to the agency represented the best-
Page 238 of 425

performing sources for Hg control. Therefore, the MACT 

limit for Hg is based upon the top 12 percent of sources 

for which we had test data.

We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its 

impacts on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless 

otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and 

the private sector. This action does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any 1 year. This action is not expected to 

impact state, local or tribal governments. The nationwide annual 

cost to the affected industry is estimated to be $19.0 million

per year for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule and $54,100

per year for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule (2011 

dollars). Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

This action is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
Page 239 of 425

governments. It contains no requirements that apply to such 

governments, nor does it impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national government and the states or

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned 

or operated by state governments and nothing in this proposal 

will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action

from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the federal government and Indian 

tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 
Page 240 of 425

in Executive Order 13175. The action imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing 

facilities and not tribal governments. Although Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal 

officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology 

performance. Nevertheless, this action will result in reductions 

in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans and Hg and other 

metals, which will provide some increased protection of health 

for people of all ages including children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. This action will not 
Page 241 of 425

adversely directly affect productivity, competition or prices in 

the energy sector.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The 

EPA proposes to use the following four VCS as acceptable 

alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this 

rule. ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981, Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 3A and 3B 

for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental 

procedures. ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test 

Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from 

Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method,” is 

acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.
Page 242 of 425

ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), “Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method),” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion 

for Hg only).

ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), “Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,” is 

acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following 

conditions: (1) the test plan preparation and implementation in 

the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are 

mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking 

Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target 

analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be 

acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 

70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R 

value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the 

test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must 

be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or

analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R 

value for each compound must be reported in the test report and

all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R 

value for that compound by using the following equation: 
Page 243 of 425

Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 

100)/%R.

The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 

potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards 

should be used in one or both of these regulations.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States.

The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous 

populations because they increase the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
Page 244 of 425

environmental effects on any population, including any minority, 

low income or indigenous populations. The proposed rule 

establishes national standards that will result in reductions in 

emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans and Hg and other metals 

to which all affected populations are exposed. Thus the proposed 

rule is projected to have positive, not adverse, impacts on 

human health and the environment.
NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Page 245 of 425

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

____________________________

Dated:

____________________________

Gina McCarthy,

Administrator.
Page 246 of 425

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the 

Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 

as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as 

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Section 63.14 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (f)(1);

b. Revising paragraph (g)(74);

c. Revising paragraph (g)(84);

d. Adding paragraph (g)(95); and

e. Revising paragraph (l)(2).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, 

IBR approved for §§63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 

63.865(b), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 

63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 

63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 
Page 247 of 425

63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 

63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to 

subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart 

KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, and table 1 to subpart

ZZZZZ.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(74) ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method 

for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

including Annexes A1 through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR 

approved for table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, 

tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix B to subpart 

UUUUU.

* * * * *

(84) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method 

for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in 

Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario 

Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for 

§§63.11646(a), 63.11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 

13 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to 

subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart 

UUUUU, and appendix A to subpart UUUUU.
Page 248 of 425

* * * * *

(95) ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method 

for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral 

Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method, IBR approved for 

table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and table 4 to subpart KKKKK.

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(2) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, 

September 1997, IBR approved for §§63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 

63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).

3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart JJJJJ to read as 

follows:

Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?

63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?

63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?
Page 249 of 425

General Compliance Requirements

63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?

63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?

63.8490 What records must I keep?

63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests

Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Page 250 of 425

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ

What This Subpart Covers

§63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission limitations for 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and structural 

clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also 

establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the emission limitations.

§63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 

BSCP manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part 

of, a major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(a) A BSCP manufacturing facility is a plant site that 

manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, 

structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; 

extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional 

clay products. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing 

facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the 

processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the 

bricks or shapes.
Page 251 of 425

(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary 

source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area 

under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any 

single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per 

year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 

tons) or more per year.

§63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or 

reconstructed affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility.

(b) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected sources 

are described in paragraph (b)(1) and (2).

(1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility are 

an affected source. For the remainder of this subpart, a tunnel 

kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 

9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of 

fired product will be called a large tunnel kiln, and a tunnel 

kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of 

fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln.

(2) Each periodic kiln is an affected source.

(c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this 

subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section.
Page 252 of 425

(1) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of 

this subpart.

(2) Raw material processing and handling.

(3) Dryers.

(d) A source is a new affected source if construction of 

the affected source began after [insert date of publication in 

the Federal Register], and you met the applicability criteria at 

the time you began construction.

(e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the 

criteria as defined in §63.2.

(f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 

reconstructed.

§63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you 

must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(2) of this section.

(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is 

after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register] but 

before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with 

the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards 

in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [THE DATE 60 
Page 253 of 425

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 

[THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your 

affected source.

(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must 

comply with the applicable emission limitations and work 

practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no 

later than [THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) If you have an existing area source that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 

source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by 

reconstructing, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for 

which construction or reconstruction commenced after [insert 

date of publication in the Federal Register]) that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 
Page 254 of 425

source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8480 

according to the schedule in §63.8480 and in subpart A of this 

part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 

required to comply with the emission limitations in this 

subpart.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

§63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

§63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

(a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to 

this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and 

collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and 
Page 255 of 425

demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and 

collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits 

in Table 2 to this subpart.

(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement 

manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting 

emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(b) To meet the work practice standards for affected 

periodic kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in 

Table 3 to this subpart.

(c) To meet the work practice standards for dioxins/furans 

for affected tunnel kilns, you must comply with the requirements 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

(d) To meet the work practice standards for affected tunnel 

kilns during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply 

with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements

§63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations 

(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, 
Page 256 of 425

except during periods of routine control device maintenance as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, 

you must operate and maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 

general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make 

any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by 

the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of 

whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and

maintenance requirements will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. During the period between the 

compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8395 

and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) 

(e.g., continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been 

installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have 

been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and 

maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment.
Page 257 of 425

(c) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare 

and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

(OM&M) plan according to the requirements in §63.8425.

(d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject 

to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and 

must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that 

kiln, you may bypass the kiln control device and continue 

operating the kiln upon approval by the Administrator provided 

you satisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(5) of this section.

(1) You must request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption from the Administrator. Your request must justify the 

need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the 

time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe 

the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance 

activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished 

during kiln shutdowns, describe how you plan to minimize 

emissions to the greatest extent possible during the 

maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the 

Administrator.
Page 258 of 425

(2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must 

not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each 

kiln.

(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance 

exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be 

incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected 

source’s title V permit.

(4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when 

the kiln is operating and the control device is offline.

(5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln 

is operating and the control device is offline.

(e) You must be in compliance with the work practice 

standards in this subpart at all times.

(f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of 

subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 8 to this 

subpart.

§63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

(a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, 

implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes 

the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan 
Page 259 of 425

must be available for inspection by the permitting authority 

upon request.

(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the 

information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.

(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of 

monitoring device that will be used, and the operating 

parameters that will be monitored.

(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that 

the parameter values will be determined and recorded.

(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous 

compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8405. The limits 

must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded 

during performance tests.

(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and 

long-term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and 

inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations.

(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or 

downstream of the last APCD).
Page 260 of 425

(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 

interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal 

analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system.

(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).

(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of 

monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).

(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance 

procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d).

(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8485 and 63.8490.

(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter 

deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) 

through (iii) of this section.

(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating 

parameter deviation.

(ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and 

returning the operating parameters to the allowable limits.

(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation 

began and ended and corrective actions were initiated and 

completed.
Page 261 of 425

(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.

(13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to take 

the kiln control device out of service for routine maintenance, 

as specified in §63.8420(d), the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the kiln 

during periods of routine maintenance of the kiln control device 

when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline.

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period 

of routine maintenance on the kiln control device when the kiln 

is operating and the control device is offline.

(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan 

require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating 

limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the 

Administrator as specified in §63.7(b).

(2) After completing the performance tests to demonstrate 

that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the 

revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the 

performance test results and the revised operating limits as 

part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under 

§63.9(h).
Page 262 of 425

(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance 

procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new 

performance test.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

§63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct 

performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance 

date that is specified for your source in §63.8395 and according 

to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2).

§63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a 

performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating 

permit or at least every 5 years following the initial 

performance test.

(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to 

change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in 

your OM&M plan.

§63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to 

this subpart that applies to you.
Page 263 of 425

(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must 

install and calibrate all monitoring equipment.

(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in 

Table 4 to this subpart.

(d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative performance of the affected 

source for the period being tested. Representative conditions 

exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. 

The owner or operator must record the process information that 

is necessary to document operating conditions during the test 

and include in such record an explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner 

or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests.

(e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for 

each performance test required in this section, as specified in 

§63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
Page 264 of 425

(f) You must use the data gathered during the performance 

test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section to determine compliance with the emission limitations.

(1) To determine compliance with the production-based 

particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions 

per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:

P

ER MP = (Eq. 1)

Where:

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of 

pollutant per megagram (ton) of fired product

ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each 

performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour

P = production rate during each performance test run, 

megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour.

(2) To determine compliance with the health-based standard 

for acid gas HAP for BSCP manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to 

this subpart, you must:

(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF, HCl, and 

Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 2:

































 +



 



















 = +

2

2

Cl

HCl

Cl

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E

RfC

RfC E E E (Eq. 2)

Where:

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour
Page 265 of 425

EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour

EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour

ECl2 = emissions of Cl2, kilograms (pounds) per hour

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for chlorine, 0.15 micrograms 

per cubic meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, 

sum the HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the 

facility using Equation 3:

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

(Eq. 3)

Where:

Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of all kilns at 

facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility

(iii) Compare this value to the health-based standard in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(g) You must establish each site-specific operating limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart.
Page 266 of 425

(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your kiln,

calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for HF, 

HCl, and Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 

4:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 































+













 = +

2

max 2

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC E Cap MP MP (Eq. 4)

Where:

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour

Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of fired 

product per hour

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms 

(pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product

MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 micrograms per 

cubic meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, 

sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel 

kilns at the facility using Equation 5:
Page 267 of 425

∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max (Eq. 5)

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for total of 

all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility

(iii) If you have a single tunnel kiln at your facility and

the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions 

(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 

to this subpart, determine the maximum process rate for the 

tunnel kiln using Equation 6 that would ensure the total 

facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or 

below the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would 

become your operating limit for process rate and must be 

included in your OM&M plan.

( ) ( ) ( ) 































+















+

=

2

2

max

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

iHCl iHF

i

RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC MP MP

HCl - eq P (Eq. 6)

Where:

Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per 

hour

HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 26 

kilograms (57 pounds) per hour

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired 
Page 268 of 425

product

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms 

(pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product

MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 micrograms per 

cubic meter

(iv) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility and 

the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions 

(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 

to this subpart, determine the combination of maximum process 

rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential 

HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HCl-equivalent limit. The 

maximum process rates would become your operating limits for 

process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.

(h) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with 

an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that 

is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the 

requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this 

section.
Page 269 of 425

(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring 

procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification 

of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iv) of this section.

(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process 

changes.

(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will 

be used.

(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.

(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will 

be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance 

with the operating limits.

(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the 

performance test based on the information included in the 

approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as 

applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart.

§63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS 

according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) of this section.
Page 270 of 425

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according 

to your OM&M plan.

(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of 

operation for each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid 

hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally 

spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more 

than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a 

routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in 

§63.8420(d)).

(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all 

recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation 

as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate 

the average for each 3-hour average period, you must have at 

least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period (not 

including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control 

periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance 

covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as 

specified in §63.8420(d)).

(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 

validation check.
Page 271 of 425

(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment 

including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for 

routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.

(b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a 

representative flowrate.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate.

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor 

calibration check.

(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section.

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a 

position that provides a representative measurement of the 

pressure.

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, 

and internal and external corrosion.

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 

0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range.
Page 272 of 425

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not 

plugged.

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly 

and transducer calibration monthly.

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration 

checks or install a new pressure sensor.

(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, 

all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical 

connections for leakage.

(d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of pH.

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative 

of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points 

every 8 hours of process operation.

(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity 

and all electrical connections for continuity.

(e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.
Page 273 of 425

(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be 

installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the 

“Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14). Other

types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, 

calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations.

(2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter 

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.

(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an 

output of relative PM loadings.

(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a 

device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor.

(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an 

audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an 

increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is 

detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by 

plant operating personnel.

(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak 

detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
Page 274 of 425

(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, 

the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric 

filter.

(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting 

the range and the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time 

according to section 5.0 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997)

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14).

(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the 

sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in your 

OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more 

than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-

day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric 

filter inspection that demonstrates that the fabric filter is in 

good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the 

“Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14). Record 

each adjustment.
Page 275 of 425

(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, 

and validation check.

(f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate 

measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that 

provides a representative feed rate measurement.

(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.

(g) For each limestone feed system on a dry limestone 

adsorber (DLA), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1), (4), and (5) of this section and must ensure on a 

monthly basis that the feed system replaces limestone at least 

as frequently as the schedule set during the performance test.

(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring 

procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8445(h) and 

63.8(f).

§63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to 

you according to Table 5 to this subpart.
Page 276 of 425

(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the 

requirements in §63.8445 and Table 4 to this subpart.

(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 

containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration

according to the requirements in §63.8480(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

§63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this 

section.

(b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated 

repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero 

and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect 

data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected 

source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified 

in §63.8420(d) when the affected source is operating.

(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring 

malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or 

required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of 

calculating data averages. A monitoring malfunction is any 
Page 277 of 425

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures 

that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 

operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data 

collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any 

averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data 

and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements.

§63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according 

to the methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart.

(b) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with 

an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or 

that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart, and each operating limit established as required 

in §63.8445(h)(2) according to the methods specified in your 
Page 278 of 425

approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described 

in §§63.8445(h)(1) and 63.8(f).

(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet 

each emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart 

that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance. These 

instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this 

subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 

requirements in §63.8485.

(d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device 

maintenance covered by an approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption according to §63.8420(d) are not 

violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

(e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible 

emissions (VE) from tunnel kilns that are uncontrolled or 

equipped with DLA, dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry 

lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), or other dry control 

device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
Page 279 of 425

(1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack 

according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the 

affected source is operating under normal conditions. The 

duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes.

(2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted 

using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily 

Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the 

frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that 

kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a 

daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed 

in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again 

decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.

(3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must report these 

deviations by following the requirements in §63.8485.
Page 280 of 425

Notifications, Reports, and Records

§63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.7(b) 

and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) 

that apply to you, by the dates specified.

(b) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your 

affected source before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must 

submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days 

after [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new 

or reconstructed affected source on or after [THE DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later 

than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.

(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you 

must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance 

test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is 

scheduled to begin, as required in §63.7(b)(1).

(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or 

other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 

and 5 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 
Page 281 of 425

Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (3) of this section.

(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a 

performance test conducted according to the requirements in 

Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of 

Compliance Status, including the performance test results, 

before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following 

the completion of the performance test, according to 

§63.10(d)(2).

(2) In addition to the requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you 

must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of 

this section in your Notification of Compliance Status.

(i) The operating limit parameter values established for 

each affected source with supporting documentation and a 

description of the procedure used to establish the values.

(ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag 

leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting 

documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8450(e).

(3) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 

to this subpart that does not include a performance test (i.e., 

compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards), you 

must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the 
Page 282 of 425

close of business on the 30th calendar day following the 

completion of the compliance demonstrations.

(f) If you request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption according to §63.8420(d), you must submit your request 

for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance 

date.

§63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 7 to this subpart 

that applies to you.

(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different 

schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must 

submit each report by the date in Table 7 to this subpart and as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) The first compliance report must cover the period 

beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your 

affected source in §63.8395 and ending on June 30 or December

31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For 

example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first 

semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on 

December 31.

(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
Page 283 of 425

(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 

semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or 

the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.

(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 

regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the 

permitting authority has established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent 

compliance reports according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of according to the dates in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

(c) The compliance report must contain the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the 

statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and 

complete.
Page 284 of 425

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 

reporting period.

(4) A description of control device maintenance performed 

while the control device was offline and the kiln controlled by 

the control device was operating, including the information 

specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) The date and time when the control device was shut down 

and restarted.

(ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the 

number of hours that the kiln operated while the control device 

was offline.

(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device 

maintenance was included in your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63.8420(d). If 

the control device maintenance was included in your approved 

routine control device maintenance exemption, then you must 

report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) 

of this section.

(A) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by 

the control device operated during the current semiannual 

compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance 

period.
Page 285 of 425

(B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the 

control device operated while the control device was offline for 

maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance 

exemption during the current semiannual compliance period and 

during the previous semiannual compliance period.

(C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs 

(c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual 

percent of kiln operating uptime during which the control device 

was offline for routine maintenance using Equation 7.

(100) p c

p c

KU KU

DT DT

RM

+

+ = (Eq. 7)

Where:

RM = Annual percentage of kiln uptime during which control 

device was offline for routine control device maintenance

DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual 

compliance period

DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual 

compliance period

KUp = Kiln uptime for the previous semiannual compliance period

KUc = Kiln uptime for the current semiannual compliance period

(5) A report of the most recent burner tune-up conducted to 

comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard in Table 3 

to this subpart.
Page 286 of 425

(6) If there are no deviations from any emission 

limitations (emission limits or operating limits) that apply to 

you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limitations during the 

reporting period.

(7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was outof-control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report 

must contain a statement that there were no periods during which 

the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.

(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected 

source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain 

the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3) of this section. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance.

(1) The total operating time of each affected source during 

the reporting period and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and 

cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 

applicable, and the corrective action taken.
Page 287 of 425

(3) The applicable operating limit or work practice 

standard from which you deviated and either the parameter 

monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you 

deviated from the work practice standard.

(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected 

source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) 

of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 

routine control device maintenance.

(1) The total operating time of each affected source during 

the reporting period and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except 

for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.

(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-ofcontrol, including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.

(4) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during routine 

control device maintenance covered in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption or during another period, 
Page 288 of 425

and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if 

applicable).

(5) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit during the deviation, and a 

description of the method used to estimate the emissions.

(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to 

a deviation.

(7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during 

the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the 

total source operating time during that reporting period.

(8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations 

during the reporting period into those that were due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes.

(9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during 

the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that reporting 

period.

(10) A brief description of the process units.

(11) A brief description of the CMS.

(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.

(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or 

control equipment since the last reporting period.
Page 289 of 425

(f) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, 

the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded.

(2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected facility to minimize 

emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b), including actions 

taken to correct a malfunction.

(g) If you have obtained a title V operating permit 

according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report 

all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual 

monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report 

according to Table 7 to this subpart along with, or as part of, 

the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the 

compliance report includes all required information concerning 

deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating 

limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any 
Page 290 of 425

obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual 

monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will 

not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority.

(h) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test 

following the procedure specified in either paragraph (h)(1) or 

(h)(2) of this section.

(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) at the 

time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance 

test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 

Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp).)

Performance test data must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Instead of 

submitting performance test data in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alternate 

electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup 

language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, once the 

XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the 
Page 291 of 425

performance test information being submitted is confidential 

business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT (or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT Web site once the XML schema is available), including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive,

or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, 

NC 27703. The same ERT file (or alternate file) with the CBI 

omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph.

(2) For data collected using test methods that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site

at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the

performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address 

listed in §63.13.

§63.8490 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section.

(1) A copy of each notification and report that you 

submitted to comply with this subpart, including all 
Page 292 of 425

documentation supporting any Initial Notification or 

Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according 

to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

(2) Records of performance tests as required in 

§63.10(b)(2)(viii).

(3) Records relating to control device maintenance and 

documentation of your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption, if you request such an exemption under 

§63.8420(d).

(b) You must keep the records required in Table 6 to this 

subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission 

limitation and work practice standard that applies to you.

(c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (11) of this section.

(1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each 

alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was 

initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of 

the alarm and the corrective action taken.

(2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter 

value, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief 

explanation of the cause of the deviation, actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b) and the 

corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its 
Page 293 of 425

normal or usual manner of operation, and whether the deviation 

occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 

Record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted 

over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions.

(3) For each affected source, records of production rates 

on a fired-product basis.

(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 

procedures.

(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

(6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any 

revisions, with records documenting conformance.

(7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs 

(c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section to document proper 

operation of your periodic kiln.

(i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for 

each product produced in each periodic kiln. If all periodic 

kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be 

maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to 

use in log sheets.
Page 294 of 425

(ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of 

product fired in each batch, the corresponding time and 

temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of 

whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired.

(iii) For each periodic kiln, a log of the actual tonnage 

of product fired in the periodic kiln and an indication of 

whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that 

specific kiln.

(8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic 

kiln work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart.

(9) Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the 

dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.

(10) For periods of startup, records of the date, time, and 

duration of each startup period, logs of the kiln exhaust 

temperature at the time the first bricks were placed in the 

kiln, and if applicable, logs of the temperature when the kiln 

exhaust stopped bypassing the control device. For periods of 

shutdown, records of the date, time, and duration of each 

shutdown period, logs of the kiln exhaust temperature at the 

time the last bricks were placed in the kiln, and if applicable, 
Page 295 of 425

logs of the temperature when the kiln exhaust began bypassing 

the control device.

(11) For each malfunction, records of the following 

information:

(i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment.

(ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation.

§63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily 

available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1).

(b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 

for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 

maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.

(c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years 

after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). 

You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Page 296 of 425

Other Requirements and Information

§63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

§63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the 

U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or 

tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated 

authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that 

agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and 

enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority 

of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph 

(c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the 

U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal 

agency.

(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, 

local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) of this section.
Page 297 of 425

(1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability 

requirements in §§63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date 

requirements in §63.8395, and the non-opacity emission 

limitations in §63.8405.

(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under 

§63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90.

(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) 

and as defined in §63.90.

(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and 

reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90.

(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting 

to the EPA required by this subpart.

§63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air 

Act, in §63.2, and in this section as follows:

Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment 

that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the 

air.

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric 

filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection 

system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that 
Page 298 of 425

operates on triboelectric, light-scattering, lighttransmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings.

Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing 

facility means a plant site that manufactures brick (including, 

but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick 

pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; 

and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and 

structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically 

process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into 

bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes.

Deviation means any instance in which an affected source 

subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a 

source:

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established 

by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission 

limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice 

standard; or

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 

implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any 

affected source required to obtain such a permit.

Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent 

into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.
Page 299 of 425

Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or 

other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric 

filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of 

the sorbent.

Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means an APCD that includes a 

limestone storage bin, a reaction chamber that is essentially a 

packed tower filled with limestone, and may or may not include a 

peeling drum that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to 

regenerate the stone for reuse.

Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating 

limit.

Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering 

a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.

Initial startup means:

(1) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with 

a DLA, the time at which the temperature in the kiln first 

reaches 260°C (500°F) and the kiln contains product; or

(2) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with 

a DIFF, DLS/FF, or wet scrubber (WS), the time at which the kiln 

first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent 

of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected 

source begins firing BSCP, whichever is earlier.
Page 300 of 425

Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the 

exhaust from a tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the 

atmosphere (or to an APCD), rather than to a sawdust dryer.

Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or 

reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 

9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product.

Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this 

subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total 

particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8), and 

as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates 

including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium.

Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln.

Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that 

is under common control, including properties that are separated 

only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control 

includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the 

same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination 

thereof.

Responsible official means responsible official as defined 

in 40 CFR 70.2.
Page 301 of 425

Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or 

reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 

tph) of fired product.

Startup means the setting in operation of an affected 

source and starting the production process.

Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire 

BSCP. Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including a 

process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an 

APCD, and a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted 

to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being 

emitted to the atmosphere.

Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of 

brick, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one 

year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). If 

a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity 

is considered to be the capacity following modifications.

Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may 

include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. 

Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.

Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work 

practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is 

promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
Page 302 of 425

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in 

the following table that applies to you:

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits

For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

1. Collection of all tunnel 

kilns at facility, including 

all process streams.

HF, HCl, and Cl2

emissions must not exceed 

26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl 

equivalent, under the 

health-based standard, as 

determined using 

Equations 2 and 3.

Not applicable.

2. Existing tunnel kiln, 

including all process 

streams.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.082 kg/Mg 

(0.16 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. PM emissions must 

not exceed 92

mg/dscm (0.040

gr/dscf) at 7% O2; 

or

ii. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.0011 kg/hr (0.023

lb/hr) of fired 

product.

3. Existing large tunnel 

kiln (design capacity ≥10 

tph of fired product), 

including all process 

streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.1 E-05 kilogram 

per megagram (kg/Mg) (2.2 

E-05 pound per ton 

(lb/ton)) of fired 

product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 29 

micrograms per dry 

standard cubic meter 

(μg/dscm) at 7% O2; 

or

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 1.2 

E-04 kg/hr (2.7 E-04

lb/hr).

4. Existing small tunnel 

kiln (design capacity <10 

tph of fired product), 

including all process 

streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2; or

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 5.0 

E-04 kg/hr (0.0011 

lb/hr).
Page 303 of 425

For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

5. New or reconstructed 

tunnel kiln, including all 

process streams

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.011 kg/Mg 

(0.022 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. PM emissions must 

not exceed 15

mg/dscm (0.0066

gr/dscf) at 7% O2; 

or

ii. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032

lb/hr) of fired 

product.

6. New or reconstructed 

large tunnel kiln, including 

all process streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 13 

μg/dscm at 7% O2.

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 1.1 

E-04 kg/hr (2.4 E-04 

lb/hr).

7. New or reconstructed 

small tunnel kiln, including 

all process streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2.

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 5.0 

E-04 kg/hr (0.0011 

lb/hr).

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each operating limit 

in the following table that applies to you:

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits

For 

each... You must...

1. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DLA.

a. Maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-

hour block period at or above the average pressure drop 

established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; or, if you

are monitoring the bypass stack damper position, initiate 

corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damper is opened 

allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and complete 

corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan; and
Page 304 of 425

For 

each... You must...

b. Maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone 

hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at 

all times; maintain the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of 

fired product basis) at or above the level established during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; and

c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was 

used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; maintain records of 

the source and grade of limestone; and

d. Maintain no VE from the DLA stack.

2. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective 

action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and 

complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; 

operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not 

engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 

6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF 

or DLS/FF stack; and

b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to 

the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain 

the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or 

above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test for continuous injection systems.

3. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average pressure drop established 

during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance test; and

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; and

c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow 

rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

performance tests; and

d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the 

average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block period 

at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test.

4. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with an 

ACI 

system.

Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average carbon flow rate established 

during the Hg performance test.

5. Tunnel 

kiln with 

no add-on 

control.

a. Maintain no VE from the stack.

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process 

rate determined according to §63.8445(g)(1).
Page 305 of 425

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each work practice 

standard in the following table that applies to you:

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

For each... You must... According to the following requirements...

1. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

periodic kiln

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Develop and use a designed firing time 

and temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the periodic kiln. You must 

either program the time and temperature 

cycle into your kiln or track each step on 

a log sheet; and

ii. Label each periodic kiln with the 

maximum load (in tons) of product that can 

be fired in the kiln during a single firing 

cycle; and

iii. For each firing load, document the 

total tonnage of product placed in the kiln 

to ensure that it is not greater than the 

maximum load identified in item 1b; and

iv. Develop and follow maintenance 

procedures for each kiln that, at a 

minimum, specify the frequency of 

inspection and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that regulate 

air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that 

regulate firing cycles; and

v. Develop and maintain records for each 

periodic kiln, as specified in §63.8490.

2. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln

a. Minimize 

dioxin/furan 

emissions.

i. Maintain and inspect the burners and 

associated combustion controls (as 

applicable); and

ii. Tune the specific burner type to 

optimize combustion.

3. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln during 

periods of startup

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln 

until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 

204 °C (400 °F); and

ii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin venting

the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

by the time the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 204 °C (400 °F).

4. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln during 

periods of shutdown

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln once 

the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 149 

°C (300 °F); and
Page 306 of 425

For each... You must... According to the following requirements...

ii. If your kiln has an APCD, continue to 

vent the exhaust from the kiln through the 

APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature 

falls to 149 °C (300 °F).

As stated in §63.8445, you must conduct each performance 

test in the following table that applies to you:

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

1. Tunnel 

kiln.

a. Select 

locations of 

sampling ports 

and the number 

of traverse 

points.

Method 1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

the APCD and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources. 

b. Determine 

velocities and 

volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

You may use Method 2A, 

2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1, 

or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2, 

as appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1.

c. Conduct gas 

molecular weight 

analysis.

Method 3 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2.

You may use Method 3A or 

3B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, as 

appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 

[Part 10] (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to the 

manual procedures (but 

not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods

3A and 3B.
Page 307 of 425

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

d. Measure 

moisture content 

of the stack 

gas.

Method 4 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.

e. Measure HF, 

HCl and Cl2

emissions.

Method 26A of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or

You may use Method 26 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, as an alternative 

to using Method 26A of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, when no acid PM 

(e.g., HF or HCl 

dissolved in water 

droplets emitted by 

sources controlled by a 

WS) is present. ASTM 

D6735-01 (Reapproved 

2009) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Methods 

26 and 26A.

Method 320 of 

appendix A of 

this part.

When using Method 320 of 

appendix A of this part, 

you must follow the 

analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 

of Method 320 of 

appendix A of this part, 

unless you can 

demonstrate that the 

complete spiking 

procedure has been 

conducted at a similar 

source. ASTM D6348-03 

(Reapproved 2010) 

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14) 

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 

320 if the test plan 

preparation and 

implementation in 

Annexes A1-A8 are 

mandatory and the %R in 

Annex A5 is determined 

for each target analyte.

f. Measure PM 

emissions or 

non-Hg HAP 

metals.

i. For PM only: 

Method 5 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; or
Page 308 of 425

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

ii. For PM or 

non-Hg HAP 

metals: Method 29 

of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8.

To determine PM, weigh 

the filter and report 

the results as PM 

filterable.

g. Measure Hg 

emissions.

Method 29 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8.

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 29 

(portion for Hg only).

2. Tunnel kiln 

with no add-on 

control.

Establish the 

operating 

limit(s) for 

kiln process 

rate if the 

total facility 

maximum 

potential HClequivalent 

emissions are 

greater than the 

HCl-equivalent 

limit in Table 1 

to this subpart.

HCl-equivalent 

limit in Table 1 

to this subpart 

and emissions and 

production data 

from the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

Using the procedures in 

§63.8445(g)(1), you must 

determine the maximum 

process rate(s) for your 

kiln(s) that would 

ensure total facility 

maximum potential HClequivalent emissions 

remain at or below the 

HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart. 

The maximum process 

rate(s) would become 

your site-specific

process rate operating 

limit(s).

3. Tunnel kiln 

that is 

complying with 

PM and/or Hg 

productionbased emission 

limits.

Determine the 

production rate 

during each 

PM/Hg test run 

in order to 

determine 

compliance with 

PM and/or Hg 

production-based 

emission limits.

Production data 

collected during 

the PM/Hg 

performance tests 

(e.g., no. of 

pushes per hour, 

no. of bricks per 

kiln car, weight 

of a typical 

fired brick).

You must measure and 

record the production 

rate, on a fired-product 

basis, of the affected 

source for each of the 

three test runs.
Page 309 of 425

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

4. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a DLA.

a. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

pressure drop 

across the DLA.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must continuously 

measure the pressure 

drop across the DLA, 

determine and record the 

block average pressure 

drop values for the 

three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded pressure 

drop measurements for 

the three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the 

limestone feeder 

setting.

Data from the 

limestone feeder 

during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must ensure that you 

maintain an adequate 

amount of limestone in 

the limestone hopper, 

storage bin (located at 

the top of the DLA), and 

DLA at all times during 

the performance test. 

You must establish your 

limestone feeder 

setting, on a per ton of 

fired product basis, one 

week prior to the 

performance test and 

maintain the feeder 

setting for the one-week 

period that precedes the 

performance test and 

during the performance 

test.

c. Document the 

source and grade 

of limestone 

used.

Records of 

limestone 

purchase.
Page 310 of 425

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

5. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the lime 

feeder setting.

Data from the 

lime feeder 

during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

For continuous lime 

injection systems, you 

must ensure that lime in 

the feed hopper or silo 

and to the APCD is freeflowing at all times 

during the performance 

test and record the 

feeder setting, on a per 

ton of fired product 

basis, for the three 

test runs. If the feed 

rate setting varies 

during the three test 

runs, determine and 

record the average feed 

rate from the three test 

runs. The average of the 

three test runs 

establishes your minimum 

site-specific feed rate 

operating limit.

6. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber 

pressure drop.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during the 

PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals

performance test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

pressure drop, determine 

and record the block 

average pressure drop 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pressure drop 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
Page 311 of 425

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

pH.

Data from the pH 

measurement 

device during the 

performance 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid pH, determine and 

record the block average 

pH values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pH measurements 

for the three test runs. 

The average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid pH 

operating limit.

c. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

flow rate.

Data from the 

flow rate 

measurement 

device during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 and 

PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals 

performance 

tests.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid flow rate, 

determine and record the 

block average flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded flow rate 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid flow 

rate operating level. If 

different average wet 

scrubber liquid flow 

rate values are measured 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2

and PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

tests, the highest of 

the average values 

become your sitespecific operating 

limit.
Page 312 of 425

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

7. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a WS that 

includes 

chemical 

addition to 

the water.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber 

chemical feed 

rate.

Data from the 

chemical feed

rate measurement 

device during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

chemical feed rate, 

determine and record the 

block average chemical 

feed rate values for the 

three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded chemical 

feed rate measurements 

for the three test runs. 

The average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific chemical 

addition rate operating 

limit.

8. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

an ACI system

Establish the

operating limit 

for the average 

carbon flow 

rate.

Data from the 

carbon flow rate 

measurement 

conducted during 

the Hg 

performance test.

You must measure the 

carbon flow rate during 

each test run, determine 

and record the block 

average carbon flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded carbon flow 

rate measurements for 

the three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific activated 

carbon flow rate 

operating limit.

As stated in §63.8455, you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Page 313 of 425

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

1. Collection of 

all tunnel kilns at 

the facility, 

including all 

process streams.

a. HF, HCl, and 

Cl2 emissions 

must not exceed 

26 kg/hr (57 

lb/hr) HCl 

equivalent.

i. You measure HF, HCl, and Cl2

emissions for each kiln using Method 

26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735-01 

(Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14); or Method 320 

of appendix A of this part or its 

alternative, ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 

2010) (incorporated by reference, see 

§63.14); and

ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for each kiln using Equation 

2 to this subpart; and

iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values 

for all kilns at the facility using 

Equation 3 to this subpart; and

iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent 

does not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr).

2. Existing tunnel 

kiln, including all 

process streams.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.082 kg/Mg 

(0.16 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 

92 mg/dscm 

(0.040 gr/dscf) 

at 7% O2; or

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8, over the period of the 

initial performance test, according to 

the calculations in §63.8445(f)(1), do 

not exceed 0.082 kg/Mg (0.16 lb/ton) 

of fired product or 92 mg/dscm (0.040

gr/dscf) at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which PM 

emissions did not exceed 0.088 kg/Mg 

(0.18 lb/ton) of fired product or 97 

mg/dscm (0.043 gr/dscf) at 7% O2.

b. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.011 kg/hr 

(0.023 lb/hr).

i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions 

measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8, over the period 

of the initial performance test, do 

not exceed 0.011 kg/hr (0.023 lb/hr); 

and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which 

non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not 

exceed 0.0114 kg/hr (0.023 lb/hr).
Page 314 of 425

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

3. Existing large 

tunnel kiln (design 

capacity ≥10 tph of 

fired product), 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.1 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.2 E-05

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 29 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 1.2 E-04

kg/hr (2.7 E-04

lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the 

period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 1.1 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.2 E-05 lb/ton) of fired product or 

29 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 E-04 kg/hr 

(2.7 E-04 lb/hr); and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which Hg 

emissions did not exceed 1.1 E-05

kg/Mg (2.2 E-05 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 

E-04 kg/hr (2.7 E-04 lb/hr).

4. Existing small 

tunnel kiln (design 

capacity <10 tph of 

fired product), 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 5.0 E-04 

kg/hr (0.0011 

lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the 

period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired product or 

70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E-04 kg/hr 

(0.0011 lb/hr); and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which Hg 

emissions did not exceed 9.9 E-05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 

E-04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr).

5. New or 

reconstructed

tunnel kiln, 

including all 

process streams.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.011 kg/Mg 

(0.022 lb/ton) 

of fired product 

or 15 mg/dscm at 

7% O2; or

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-3, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8445(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.011 kg/Mg (0.022 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O2;

and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which PM 

emissions did not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg 

(0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15

mg/dscm at 7% O2.
Page 315 of 425

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

b. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.0014 kg/hr 

(0.0032 lb/hr).

i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions 

measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8, over the period 

of the initial performance test, do 

not exceed 0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032

lb/hr); and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which 

non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not 

exceed 0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032 lb/hr).

6. New or 

reconstructed large 

tunnel kiln, 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-05 

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 13 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 1.1 E-04

kg/hr (2.4 E-04

lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the 

period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 1.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of fired product or 

13 μg/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which Hg 

emissions did not exceed 1.0 E-05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.1 

E-04 kg/hr (2.4 E-04 lb/hr).

7. New or 

reconstructed small 

tunnel kiln, 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 5.0 E-04 

kg/hr (0.0011 

lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the 

period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired product or 

70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E-04 kg/hr 

(0.0011 lb/hr); and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which Hg 

emissions did not exceed 9.9 E-05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2.
Page 316 of 425

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions.

i. Develop a designed firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the periodic kiln. You 

must either program the time and 

temperature cycle into your kiln or 

track each step on a log sheet; and

ii. Label each periodic kiln with the 

maximum load (in tons) of product that 

can be fired in the kiln during a 

single firing cycle; and

iii. Develop maintenance procedures 

for each kiln that, at a minimum,

specify the frequency of inspection 

and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that 

regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and 

controls that regulate firing cycles.

9. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln.

a. Minimize 

dioxin/furan 

emissions.

i. Conduct initial inspection of the 

burners and associated combustion 

controls (as applicable); and

ii. Tune the specific burner type to 

optimize combustion.

As stated in §63.8470, you must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Page 317 of 425

For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

1. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DLA.

a. Each 

emission limit 

in Table 1 to 

this subpart 

and each 

operating limit 

in Item 1 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for 

tunnel kilns 

equipped with a 

DLA.

i. Collecting the DLA pressure drop data 

according to §63.8450(a); reducing the DLA 

pressure drop data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the 

average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-

hour block period at or above the average

pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test; or continuously monitoring the 

bypass stack damper position at least once every 

15 minutes during normal kiln operation, and 

initiating corrective action within 1 hour after

the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln 

exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and completing 

corrective action in accordance with your OM&M 

plan; and

ii. Verifying that the limestone hopper and 

storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) 

contain adequate limestone by performing a daily 

visual check, which could include one of the 

following: (1) conducting a physical check of 

the hopper; (2) creating a visual access point, 

such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) 

installing a camera in the hopper that provides 

continuous feed to a video monitor in the 

control room; or (4) confirming that load level 

indicators in the hopper are not indicating the 

need for additional limestone; and

iii. Recording the limestone feeder setting 

daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to 

verify that the feeder setting is being 

maintained at or above the level established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; and

iv. Using the same grade of limestone from the 

same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test; maintaining records of the 

source and type of limestone; and

v. Performing VE observations of the DLA stack 

at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; 

maintaining no VE from the DLA stack.
Page 318 of 425

For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

2. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

a. Each 

emission limit 

in Table 1 to 

this subpart 

and each 

operating limit 

in Item 2 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for 

tunnel kilns 

equipped with 

DIFF or DLS/FF.

i. If you use a bag leak detection system, 

initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a 

bag leak detection system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M 

plan; operating and maintaining the fabric 

filter such that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total operating time 

in a 6-month block reporting period; in 

calculating this operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm 

time is counted; if corrective action is 

required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 

1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to 

initiate corrective action, the alarm time is 

counted as the actual amount of time taken by 

you to initiate corrective action; or performing 

VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at 

the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; and 

maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; 

and

ii. Verifying that lime is free-flowing via a 

load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, 

carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or 

other system; recording all monitor or sensor 

output, and if lime is found not to be free 

flowing, promptly initiating and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M 

plan; recording the feeder setting once during 

each shift of operation to verify that the 

feeder setting is being maintained at or above 

the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

3. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a WS.

a. Each 

emission limit 

in Table 1 to 

this subpart 

and each 

operating limit 

in Item 3 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for 

tunnel kilns 

equipped with 

WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data 

according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber 

pressure drop data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the 

average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average pressure 

drop established during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals

performance test; and
Page 319 of 425

For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data 

according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber 

liquid pH data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the 

average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average scrubber liquid 

pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test; and

iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate 

data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the 

scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining 

the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 

3-hour block period at or above the highest 

average scrubber liquid flow rate established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

performance tests; and

iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber 

water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed 

rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the 

scrubber chemical feed rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining 

the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 

3-hour block period at or above the average 

scrubber chemical feed rate established during 

the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test.

4. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with an 

ACI 

system.

Each emission 

limit in Table 

1 to this 

subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 4 

of Table 2 to 

this subpart 

for tunnel 

kilns equipped 

with ACI 

system.

Collecting the carbon flow rate data according 

to §63.8450(a); reducing the carbon flow rate 

data to 3-hour block averages according to 

§63.8450(a); maintaining the average carbon flow 

rate for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average carbon flow rate established during 

the Hg performance test.

5. Tunnel 

kiln with 

no add-on 

control

a. Each 

emission limit 

in Table 1 to 

this subpart 

and each 

operating limit 

in Item 5 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for 

tunnel kilns 

with no add-on 

control.

i. Performing VE observations of the stack at 

the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; and 

maintaining no VE from the stack.
Page 320 of 425

For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

ii. If your last calculated total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or 

below the health-based standard in Table 1 to 

this subpart, collecting the kiln process rate 

data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the kiln 

process rate data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the 

average kiln process rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or below the kiln process rate 

determined according to §63.8445(g)(1).

6. 

Periodic 

kiln

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions.

i. Using a designed firing time and temperature 

cycle for each product produced in the periodic 

kiln; and

ii. For each firing load, documenting the total 

tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure 

that it is not greater than the maximum load

identified in Item 1.a.ii of Table 3 to this 

subpart; and

iii. Following maintenance procedures for each 

kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency 

of inspection and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that regulate airto-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate 

firing cycles; and

iv. Developing and maintaining records for each 

periodic kiln, as specified in §63.8490.

7. Tunnel 

kiln

a. Minimize 

dioxin/furan 

emissions

i. Maintaining and inspecting the burners and 

associated combustion controls (as applicable) 

and tuning the specific burner type to optimize 

combustion no later than 36 calendar months 

after the previous tune-up; and

ii. Maintaining records of burner tune-ups used 

to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan 

work practice standard; and

iii. Submitting a report of most recent tune-up 

conducted with compliance report.

As stated in §63.8485, you must submit each report that 

applies to you according to the following table:

Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Page 321 of 425

You must 

submit... The report must contain...

You must submit 

the report...

1. A 

compliance 

report.

a. If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitations (emission limits, 

operating limits) that apply to you, a 

statement that there were no deviations 

from the emission limitations during the 

reporting period. If there were no periods 

during which the CMS was out-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, a statement 

that there were no periods during which 

the CMS was out-of-control during the 

reporting period.

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8485(b).

b. If you have a deviation from any 

emission limitation (emission limit, 

operating limit) during the reporting 

period, the report must contain the 

information in §63.8485(d) or (e). If 

there were periods during which the CMS 

was out-of-control, as specified in your 

OM&M plan, the report must contain the 

information in §63.8485(e).

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8485(b).

As stated in §63.8505, you must comply with the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according 

to the following table:

Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.1 Applicability. Initial applicability 

determination; 

applicability after 

standard established; 

permit requirements; 

extensions, 

notifications.

Yes.

§63.2 Definitions. Definitions for part 

63 standards.

Yes.

§63.3 Units and 

Abbreviations.

Units and 

abbreviations for part 

63 standards.

Yes.

§63.4 Prohibited 

Activities.

Compliance date; 

circumvention; 

severability.

Yes.
Page 322 of 425

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.5 Construction/

Reconstruction.

Applicability; 

applications; 

approvals.

Yes.

§63.6(a) Applicability. General Provisions 

(GP) apply unless 

compliance extension; 

GP apply to area 

sources that become 

major.

Yes.

§63.6(b)(1)-(4) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at 

effective date; 3 

years after effective 

date; upon startup; 10 

years after 

construction or 

reconstruction 

commences for section 

112(f).

Yes.

§63.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if 

commenced construction 

or reconstruction 

after proposal.

Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(b)(7) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

Area Sources 

That Become 

Major.

Area sources that 

become major must 

comply with major 

source standards 

immediately upon 

becoming major, 

regardless of whether 

required to comply 

when they were area 

sources.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(1)-(2) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing 

Sources.

Comply according to 

date in subpart, which 

must be no later than 

3 years after 

effective date; for 

section 112(f) 

standards, comply 

within 90 days of 

effective date unless 

compliance extension.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)-(4) [Reserved]. No.
Page 323 of 425

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.6(c)(5) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing Area 

Sources That 

Become Major.

Area sources that 

become major must 

comply with major 

source standards by

date indicated in 

subpart or by 

equivalent time period 

(for example, 3 

years).

Yes.

§63.6(d) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(1)(i) Operation & 

Maintenance.

General Duty to 

minimize emissions.

No. See 

§63.8420(b) for 

general duty 

requirement.

§63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation & 

Maintenance.

Requirement to correct 

malfunctions ASAP.

No.

§63.6(e)(1)(iii) Operation &

Maintenance.

Operation and 

maintenance 

requirements

enforceable 

independent of 

emissions limitations.

Yes.

§63.6(e)(2) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(3) Startup,

Shutdown, and

Malfunction

Plan (SSMP).

Requirement for 

startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) and 

SSMP; content of SSMP. 

No.

§63.6(f)(1) Compliance 

Except During 

SSM.

You must comply with 

emission standards at 

all times except 

during SSM.

No.

§63.6(f)(2)-(3) Methods for 

Determining 

Compliance.

Compliance based on 

performance test, 

operation and 

maintenance plans, 

records, inspection.

Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative

Standard.

Procedures for getting 

an alternative 

standard.

Yes.

§63.6(h) Opacity/VE

Standards.

Requirements for 

opacity and VE 

standards.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.6(i) Compliance 

Extension.

Procedures and 

criteria for 

Administrator to grant 

compliance extension.

Yes.
Page 324 of 425

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.6(j) Presidential 

Compliance 

Exemption.

President may exempt 

source category.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(1)-(2) Performance 

Test Dates.

Dates for conducting 

initial performance 

testing and other 

compliance 

demonstrations for 

emission limits and 

work practice 

standards; must 

conduct 180 days after 

first subject to rule.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(3) Section 114 

Authority.

Administrator may 

require a performance 

test under CAA section 

114 at any time.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(4) Notification of 

Delay in 

Performance 

Testing Due To 

Force Majeure.

Must notify 

Administrator of delay 

in performance testing 

due to force majeure.

Yes.

§63.7(b)(1) Notification of 

Performance 

Test.

Must notify 

Administrator 60 days 

before the test.

Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of 

Rescheduling.

Must notify 

Administrator 5 days 

before scheduled date 

of rescheduled date.

Yes.

§63.7(c) Quality 

Assurance(QA)/ 

Test Plan.

Requirements; test 

plan approval 

procedures; 

performance audit 

requirements; internal 

and external QA 

procedures for 

testing.

Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing 

Facilities.

Requirements for 

testing facilities.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Cannot conduct 

performance tests 

during SSM; not a 

violation to exceed 

standard during SSM.

No, §63.8445 

specifies 

requirements.
Page 325 of 425

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.7(e)(2)-(3) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Must conduct according 

to subpart and EPA 

test methods unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative; must have 

at least three test 

runs of at least 1 

hour each; compliance 

is based on arithmetic 

mean of three runs; 

conditions when data 

from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under 

Section 114

Administrator's 

authority to require 

testing under section 

114 of the Act.

Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative

Test Method.

Procedures by which 

Administrator can 

grant approval to use 

an alternative test 

method.

Yes.

§63.7(g) Performance 

Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data 

in performance test 

report; must submit 

performance test data 

60 days after end of 

test with the 

notification of 

compliance status.

Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of 

Tests.

Procedures for 

Administrator to waive 

performance test.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability 

of Monitoring

Requirements.

Subject to all 

monitoring 

requirements in 

subpart.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(2) Performance 

Specifications.

Performance 

Specifications in 

appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No.

§63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with 

Flares.

Requirements for 

flares in §63.11 

apply.

No, not 

applicable.
Page 326 of 425

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct 

monitoring according 

to standard unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative.

Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)-(3) Multiple 

Effluents and 

Multiple 

Monitoring 

Systems.

Specific requirements 

for installing and 

reporting on 

monitoring systems.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring 

System 

Operation and 

Maintenance.

Maintenance consistent 

with good air 

pollution control 

practices.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and 

Predictable 

SSM.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

described in SSMP.

No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in 

SSMP.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

not described in SSMP.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Requirements.

How Administrator 

determines if source 

complying with 

operation and 

maintenance 

requirements.

No.

§63.8(c)(2)-(3) Monitoring 

System 

Installation.

Must install to get 

representative 

emission and parameter 

measurements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS 

Requirements.

Requirements for CMS. No, §63.8450 

specifies 

requirements.

§63.8(c)(5) Continuous 

Opacity 

Monitoring 

System (COMS) 

Minimum 

Procedures.

COMS minimum 

procedures.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(c)(6) CMS 

Requirements.

Zero and high level 

calibration check 

requirements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(7)-(8) CMS 

Requirements.

Out-of-control 

periods.

Yes.

§63.8(d) CMS Quality 

Control.

Requirements for CMS 

quality control.

Yes.
Page 327 of 425

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.8(e) CMS Performance

Evaluation.

Requirements for CMS 

performance 

evaluation.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(1)-(5) Alternative

Monitoring

Method.

Procedures for 

Administrator to 

approve alternative 

monitoring.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to

Relative 

Accuracy Test.

Procedures for 

Administrator to 

approve alternative 

relative accuracy test 

for continuous 

emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS).

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(g) Data Reduction. COMS and CEMS data 

reduction 

requirements.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(a) Notification

Requirements.

Applicability; State 

delegation.

Yes.

§63.9(b) Initial 

Notifications.

Requirements for 

initial notifications.

Yes.

§63.9(c) Request for

Compliance

Extension.

Can request if cannot 

comply by date or if 

installed BACT/LAER.

Yes.

§63.9(d) Notification of

Special

Compliance

Requirements

for New Source.

For sources that 

commence construction 

between proposal and 

promulgation and want 

to comply 3 years 

after effective date.

Yes.

§63.9(e) Notification of 

Performance

Test.

Notify Administrator 

60 days prior.

Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of 

VE/Opacity

Test.

Notify Administrator 

30 days prior.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(g)(1) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of 

performance 

evaluation.

Yes

§63.9(g)(2)-(3) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of COMS 

data use; notification 

that relative accuracy 

alternative criterion 

were exceeded.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(h) Notification of 

Compliance

Status.

Contents; submittal 

requirements.

Yes.
Page 328 of 425

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.9(i) Adjustment of

Submittal 

Deadlines.

Procedures for 

Administrator to 

approve change in when 

notifications must be 

submitted.

Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in 

Previous 

Information.

Must submit within 15 

days after the change.

Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Applicability; general 

information.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(1) General 

Recordkeeping 

Requirements.

General requirements. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

occurrence and 

duration of startups 

and shutdowns.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

failures to meet a 

standard.

No. See 

§63.8490(c)(2)

for 

recordkeeping of 

(1) date, time 

and duration; 

(2) listing of 

affected source 

or equipment, 

and an estimate 

of the volume of 

each regulated 

pollutant 

emitted over the 

standard; and 

(3) actions to 

minimize 

emissions and 

correct the 

failure.

§63.10(b)(2)(iii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Maintenance records. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(v)

Records Related 

to SSM.

Actions taken to 

minimize emissions 

during SSM.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(xii) and (xiv)

CMS Records. Records when CMS is 

malfunctioning, 

inoperative or out-ofcontrol.

Yes.
Page 329 of 425

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records. Records when using 

alternative to 

relative accuracy 

test.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(b)(3) Records. Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes.

§63.10(c)(1)-(15) Records. Additional records for 

CMS

No, §§63.8425 

and 63.8490 

specify 

requirements.

§63.10(d)(1) and 

(2)

General 

Reporting

Requirements.

Requirements for 

reporting; performance 

test results 

reporting.

Yes.

§63.10(d)(3) Reporting 

Opacity or VE

Observations.

Requirements for 

reporting opacity and 

VE.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(d)(4) Progress 

Reports.

Must submit progress 

reports on schedule if 

under compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.10(d)(5) SSM

Reports.

Contents and 

submission.

No. See 

§63.8485(f) for 

malfunction 

reporting 

requirements.

§63.10(e)(1)-(3) Additional CMS

Reports.

Requirements for CMS 

reporting.

No, §§63.8425 

and 63.8485 

specify 

requirements.

§63.10(e)(4) Reporting COMS 

data.

Requirements for 

reporting COMS data 

with performance test 

data.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(f) Waiver for

Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Procedures for 

Administrator to 

waive.

Yes.

§63.11 Flares. Requirement for 

flares.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.12 Delegation. State authority to 

enforce standards.

Yes.

§63.13 Addresses. Addresses for reports, 

notifications, 

requests.

Yes.

§63.14 Incorporation 

by Reference.

Materials incorporated 

by reference.

Yes.
Page 330 of 425

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.15 Availability of 

Information.

Information 

availability; 

confidential 

information.

Yes.

§63.16 Performance 

Track 

Provisions.

Requirements for 

Performance Track 

member facilities.

Yes.

4. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart KKKKK to read as 

follows:

Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?

63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?

63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?
Page 331 of 425

63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?

63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?

63.8640 What records must I keep?

63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits

Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits

Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests

Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors

Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart KKKKK
Page 332 of 425

What This Subpart Covers

§63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission limitations and 

work practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

emitted from clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. This 

subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and 

continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work 

practice standards.

§63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 

clay ceramics manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or 

is part of a major source of HAP emissions according to the 

criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site 

that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other 

pressed tile, or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, 

and various additives; form the processed materials into tile or 

sanitaryware shapes; and dry and fire the ceramic products. 

Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products.

(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary 

source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area 

under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any 
Page 333 of 425

single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per 

year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 

tons) or more per year.

§63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or 

reconstructed affected source at a clay ceramics manufacturing 

facility.

(b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed ceramic tile 

roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, sanitaryware shuttle 

kiln, ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying, sanitaryware 

glaze spray booth, ceramic tile spray dryer, and floor tile 

press dryer is an affected source.

(c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this 

subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 

section.

(1) Kilns that are used exclusively for refiring.

(2) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products.

(3) Glaze spray operations that use wet glazes containing 

less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis).

(4) Raw material processing and handling.

(5) Wall tile press dryers.

(6) Sanitaryware ware dryers.
Page 334 of 425

(d) A source is a new affected source if construction of 

the affected source began after [insert date of publication in 

the Federal Register], and you met the applicability criteria at 

the time you began construction.

(e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the 

criteria as defined in §63.2.

(f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 

reconstructed.

§63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you 

must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(2) of this section.

(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is 

after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register] but 

before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with 

the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards 

in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 

[THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the 
Page 335 of 425

applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your 

affected source.

(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must 

comply with the emission limitations and work practice standards 

for existing sources in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no 

later than [THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) If you have an existing area source that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 

source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by 

reconstructing, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for 

which construction or reconstruction was commenced after [insert 

date of publication in the Federal Register]) that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 

source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8630 

according to the schedule in §63.8630 and in subpart A of this 

part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
Page 336 of 425

required to comply with the emission limitations in this 

subpart.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

§63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

§63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

(a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to 

this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and 

collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and 

demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and 

collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits 

in Table 2 to this subpart.
Page 337 of 425

(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement 

manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting 

emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(b) To meet the work practice standards for affected 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns, you must comply with the 

requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

(c) To meet the work practice standards for affected 

sources during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply 

with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements

§63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations 

(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, 

except during periods of routine control device maintenance as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, 

you must operate and maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 

general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make 
Page 338 of 425

any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by 

the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of 

whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and

maintenance requirements will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and

inspection of the source. During the period between the 

compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8545 

and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) 

(e.g., continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been 

installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have 

been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and 

maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment.

(c) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

prepare and implement a written operation, maintenance, and 

monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in 

§63.8575.

(d) If you own or operate an affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this 

subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control 

device for that affected source, you may bypass the source 
Page 339 of 425

control device and continue operating the affected source upon 

approval by the Administrator provided you satisfy the 

conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section.

(1) You must request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption from the Administrator. Your request must justify the 

need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the 

time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe 

the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance 

activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished 

during source shutdowns, describe how you plan to minimize 

emissions to the greatest extent possible during the 

maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the 

Administrator.

(2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must 

not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each 

affected source.

(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance 

exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be 

incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected 

source’s title V permit.
Page 340 of 425

(4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when 

the affected source is operating and the control device is 

offline.

(5) You must minimize the time period during which the 

affected source is operating and the control device is offline.

(e) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject 

to the work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart, you must be in compliance with that work practice 

standard at all times, except during periods of natural gas 

curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available.

(f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of 

subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 9 to this 

subpart.

§63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

(a) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that 

includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your 

OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting 

authority upon request.

(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the 

information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.
Page 341 of 425

(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of 

monitoring device that will be used, and the operating 

parameters that will be monitored.

(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that 

the parameter values will be determined and recorded.

(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous 

compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8555. The limits 

must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded 

during performance tests.

(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and 

long-term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and 

inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations.

(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or 

downstream of the last APCD).

(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 

interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal 

analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system.

(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
Page 342 of 425

(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of 

monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).

(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance 

procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d).

(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8635 and 63.8640.

(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter 

deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) 

through (iii) of this section.

(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating 

parameter deviation.

(ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and 

returning the operating parameters to the allowable limits.

(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation 

began and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and 

completed.

(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.

(13) If you operate an affected source and you plan to take 

the source control device out of service for routine 

maintenance, as specified in §63.8570(d), the procedures 

specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section.
Page 343 of 425

(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the 

affected source during periods of routine maintenance of the 

source control device when the affected source is operating and 

the control device is offline.

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period 

of routine maintenance on the source control device when the 

affected source is operating and the control device is offline.

(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan 

require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating 

limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the 

Administrator as specified in §63.7(b).

(2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate 

that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the 

revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the 

performance test results and the revised operating limits as 

part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under 

§63.9(h).

(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance 

procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new 

performance test.
Page 344 of 425

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

§63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

For each affected source that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct 

performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance 

date that is specified for your source in §63.8545 and according 

to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2).

§63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 

operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial 

performance test.

(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to 

change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in 

your OM&M plan.

§63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must 

install and calibrate all monitoring equipment.
Page 345 of 425

(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in 

Table 4 to this subpart.

(d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative performance of the affected 

source for the period being tested. Representative conditions 

exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction.

The owner or operator must record the process information that 

is necessary to document operating conditions during the test 

and include in such record an explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner 

or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests.

(e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for 

each performance test required in this section, as specified in 

§63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.

(f) You must use the data gathered during the performance 

test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this 

section to determine compliance with the emission limitations.
Page 346 of 425

(1) To determine compliance with the production-based 

particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits for 

ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per 

unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:

P

ER MP = (Eq. 1)

Where:

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of 

pollutant per megagram (ton) of fired product

ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each 

performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour

P = production rate during each performance test run, 

megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour.

(2) To determine compliance with the PM emission limits for 

ceramic tile glaze lines with glaze spraying and sanitaryware 

glaze spray booths in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

calculate your mass emissions per unit of glaze sprayed for each 

test run using Equation 2:

G

ER MG = (Eq. 2)

Where:

MG = mass per unit of glaze application, kilograms (pounds) of 

PM per megagram (ton) of glaze sprayed

ER = mass emission rate of PM during each performance test 

run, kilograms (pounds) per hour

G = glaze application rate during each performance test run, 
Page 347 of 425

megagrams (tons) of glaze sprayed per hour.

(3) To determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission 

limits for tunnel and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray dryers, 

and floor tile press dryers in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

calculate the sum of the 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

(2,3,7,8-TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQs) for each test run using 

Equation 3:

∑( ) =

= ×

n

i

TEQ Ci TEFi

1

(Eq. 3)

Where:

TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter

Ci = concentration of dioxin or furan congener i, nanograms 

per dry standard cubic meter

TEFi = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for congener 

i, as provided in Table 5 to this subpart.

n = number of congeners included in TEQ

(4) To determine compliance with the health-based standard 

for acid gas HAP for clay ceramics manufacturing facilities in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must:

(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF and HCl 

for each tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation 

4:





 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E E E (Eq. 4)
Page 348 of 425

Where:

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour

EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour

EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your 

facility, sum the HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel or roller 

kilns at the facility using Equation 5:

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

(Eq. 5)

Where:

Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of all kilns at 

facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility

(iii) Compare this value to the health-based standard in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(g) You must establish each site-specific operating limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart.
Page 349 of 425

(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your tunnel 

or roller kiln, you must calculate the maximum potential HClequivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller 

kiln at your facility using Equation 6:

( ) ( ) ( ) 



 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC Emax Cap MP MP (Eq. 6)

Where:

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour

Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of fired 

product per hour

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms 

(pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your 

facility, sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for 

all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility using Equation 7:

∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max (Eq. 7)

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for total of 
Page 350 of 425

all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of kilns at facility

(iii) If you have a single tunnel or roller kiln at your 

facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the maximum process 

rate for the kiln using Equation 8 that would ensure the total 

facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or 

below the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would 

become your operating limit for process rate and must be 

included in your OM&M plan.

( ) ( ) 



 





















+

=

HF

HCl

iHCl iHF

i

RfC

RfC MP MP

HCl - eq Pmax (Eq. 8)

Where:

Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per 

hour

HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 62 

kilograms (140 pounds) per hour

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms 

(pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter
Page 351 of 425

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

(iv) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your 

facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the combination of 

maximum process rates that would ensure that total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HClequivalent limit. The maximum process rates would become your 

operating limits for process rate and must be included in your 

OM&M plan.

(h) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this 

subpart or that is using process changes as a means of meeting 

the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet 

the requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of 

this section.

(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring 

procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification 

of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iv) of this section.
Page 352 of 425

(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process 

changes.

(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will 

be used.

(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.

(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will 

be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance 

with the operating limits.

(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the 

performance test based on the information included in the 

approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as 

applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart.

§63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS 

according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according 

to your OM&M plan.

(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of 

operation for each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid 

hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally 

spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more 
Page 353 of 425

than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a 

routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in 

§63.8570(d)).

(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all 

recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation 

as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate 

the average for each 3-hour average period, you must have at 

least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period (not 

including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control 

periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance 

covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as 

specified in §63.8570(d)).

(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 

validation check.

(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment 

including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for 

routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.

(b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
Page 354 of 425

(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a 

representative flowrate.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate.

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor 

calibration check.

(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section.

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a 

position that provides a representative measurement of the 

pressure.

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, 

and internal and external corrosion.

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 

0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range.

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not 

plugged.

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly 

and transducer calibration monthly.
Page 355 of 425

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration 

checks or install a new pressure sensor.

(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, 

all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical 

connections for leakage.

(d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of pH.

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative 

of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points 

every 8 hours of process operation.

(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity 

and all electrical connections for continuity.

(e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.

(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be 

installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the 

“Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14). Other 
Page 356 of 425

types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, 

calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations.

(2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter 

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.

(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an 

output of relative PM loadings.

(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a 

device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor.

(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an 

audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an 

increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is 

detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by 

plant operating personnel.

(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak 

detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, 

the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric 

filter.

(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
Page 357 of 425

(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting 

the range and the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time 

according to section 5.0 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997)

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14).

(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the 

sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in your 

OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more 

than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-

day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric 

filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric filter is 

in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the 

“Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14). Record 

each adjustment.

(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, 

and validation check.

(f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate 

measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.
Page 358 of 425

(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that 

provides a representative feed rate measurement.

(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.

(g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that 

provides a representative temperature.

(2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 

1 percent of the temperature being measured.

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.

(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring 

procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8595(h) and 

63.8(f).

§63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to 

you according to Table 6 to this subpart.

(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the 

requirements in §63.8595 and Table 4 to this subpart.
Page 359 of 425

(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 

containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 

according to the requirements in §63.8630(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

§63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this 

section.

(b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated 

repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero 

and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect 

data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected 

source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified 

in §63.8570(d) when the affected source is operating.

(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring 

malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or 

required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of 

calculating data averages. A monitoring malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures 

that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 
Page 360 of 425

operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data 

collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any 

averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data 

and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements.

§63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according 

to the methods specified in Table 7 to this subpart.

(b) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this 

subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting 

the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as 

required in §63.8595(h)(2) according to the methods specified in 

your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as 

described in §§63.8595(h)(1) and 63.8(f).

(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet 

each emission limit and operating limit in this subpart that 
Page 361 of 425

applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance. These 

instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this 

subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 

requirements in §63.8635.

(d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device 

maintenance covered by an approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption according to §63.8570(d) are not 

violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's 

satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

(e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible 

emissions (VE) from tunnel or roller kilns that are uncontrolled 

or equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF, or other dry control device by 

monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements 

in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack 

according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the 

affected source is operating under normal conditions. The 

duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes.
Page 362 of 425

(2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted 

using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily 

Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the 

frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that 

kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a 

daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed 

in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again 

decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.

(3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must report these 

deviations by following the requirements in §63.8635.

Notifications, Reports, and Records

§63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.7(b) 

and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) 

that apply to you, by the dates specified.

(b) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your 

affected source before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must 
Page 363 of 425

submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days 

after [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new 

or reconstructed affected source or affected source described in 

§63.8540(d) or §63.8540(e) on or after [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later 

than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.

(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you 

must submit a written notification of intent to conduct a 

performance test at least 60 calendar days before the 

performance test is scheduled to begin, as required in 

§63.7(b)(1).

(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or 

other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 

and 6 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (3) of this section.

(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a 

performance test conducted according to the requirements in 

Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of 

Compliance Status, including the performance test results, 
Page 364 of 425

before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following 

the completion of the performance test, according to 

§63.10(d)(2).

(2) In addition to the requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you 

must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of 

this section in your Notification of Compliance Status:

(i) The operating limit parameter values established for 

each affected source with supporting documentation and a 

description of the procedure used to establish the values.

(ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag 

leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting 

documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8600(e).

(3) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 6 

to this subpart that does not include a performance test (i.e., 

compliance demonstration for the work practice standard), you 

must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the 

close of business on the 30th calendar day following the 

completion of the compliance demonstration.

(f) If you request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption according to §63.8570(d), you must submit your request 

for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance 

date.
Page 365 of 425

(g) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject 

to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to 

this subpart, and you intend to use a fuel other than natural 

gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a 

notification of alternative fuel use within 48 hours of the 

declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply 

interruption, as defined in §63.8665. The notification must 

include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(5) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Identification of the affected kiln.

(3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent 

fuel, including the date when the natural gas curtailment was 

declared or the natural gas supply interruption began.

(4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use.

(5) Dates when the alternative fuel use is expected to 

begin and end.

§63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 8 to this subpart 

that applies to you.

(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different 

schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must 
Page 366 of 425

submit each report by the date in Table 8 to this subpart and as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) The first compliance report must cover the period 

beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your 

affected source in §63.8545 and ending on June 30 or December 

31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For 

example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first 

semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on 

December 31.

(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 

semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or 

the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.

(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 

regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if 

the permitting authority has established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent 
Page 367 of 425

compliance reports according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of according to the dates in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

(c) The compliance report must contain the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the 

statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and 

complete.

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the

reporting period.

(4) A description of control device maintenance performed 

while the control device was offline and the affected source 

controlled by the control device was operating, including the 

information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of 

this section.

(i) The date and time when the control device was shut down 

and restarted.

(ii) Identification of the affected source that was 

operating and the number of hours that the affected source 

operated while the control device was offline.
Page 368 of 425

(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device 

maintenance was included in your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63.8570(d). If 

the control device maintenance was included in your approved 

routine control device maintenance exemption, then you must 

report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) 

of this section.

(A) The total amount of time that the affected source 

controlled by the control device operated during the current 

semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual 

compliance period.

(B) The amount of time that each affected source controlled 

by the control device operated while the control device was 

offline for maintenance covered under the routine control device 

maintenance exemption during the current semiannual compliance 

period and during the previous semiannual compliance period.

(C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs 

(c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual 

percent of affected source operating uptime during which the 

control device was offline for routine maintenance using 

Equation 9.

(100) p c

p c

SU +SU

DT +DT

RM= (Eq. 9)
Page 369 of 425

Where:

RM = Annual percentage of affected source uptime during which 

control device was offline for routine control device 

maintenance

DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual 

compliance period

DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual 

compliance period

SUp = Affected source uptime for the previous semiannual 

compliance period

SUc = Affected source uptime for the current semiannual 

compliance period

(5) If there are no deviations from any emission 

limitations (emission limits or operating limits) or work 

practice standards that apply to you, the compliance report must 

contain a statement that there were no deviations from the 

emission limitations or work practice standards during the 

reporting period.

(6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was outof-control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report 

must contain a statement that there were no periods during which 

the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.

(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected 

source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain 
Page 370 of 425

the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3) of this section. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance.

(1) The total operating time of each affected source during 

the reporting period and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and 

cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 

applicable, and the corrective action taken.

(3) The applicable operating limit or work practice 

standard from which you deviated and either the parameter 

monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you 

deviated from the work practice standard.

(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected 

source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) 

of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 

routine control device maintenance.

(1) The total operating time of each affected source during 

the reporting period and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.
Page 371 of 425

(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except 

for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.

(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-ofcontrol, including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.

(4) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during routine 

control device maintenance covered in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption or during another period, 

and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if 

applicable).

(5) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit during the deviation, and a 

description of the method used to estimate the emissions.

(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to 

a deviation.

(7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during 

the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the 

total source operating time during that reporting period.

(8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations 

during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes.
Page 372 of 425

(9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during 

the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a

percent of the total source operating time during that reporting 

period.

(10) A brief description of the process units.

(11) A brief description of the CMS.

(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.

(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or 

control equipment since the last reporting period.

(f) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, 

the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded.

(2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected facility to minimize 

emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b), including actions 

taken to correct a malfunction.

(g) If you have obtained a title V operating permit 

according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report 
Page 373 of 425

all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual 

monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report 

according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or as part of, 

the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the 

compliance report includes all required information concerning 

deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating 

limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any 

obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual 

monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will 

not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority.

(h) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject 

to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to 

this subpart, and you use a fuel other than natural gas or 

equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a report 

of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating 

the use of the alternative fuel. The report must include the 

information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (6) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Identification of the affected kiln.

(3) Reason for using the alternative fuel.
Page 374 of 425

(4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected 

kiln.

(5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and 

ended.

(6) Amount of alternative fuel used.

(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test

following the procedures specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or 

(i)(2) of this section.

(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) at the 

time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance 

test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 

Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp).)

Performance test data must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Instead of 

submitting performance test data in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alternate 

electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup 

language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, once the 
Page 375 of 425

XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being submitted is confidential 

business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT (or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT Web site once the XML schema is available), including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive,

or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, 

NC 27703. The same ERT file (or alternate file) with the CBI 

omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph.

(2) For data collected using test methods that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site

at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the 

performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address 

listed in §63.13.

§63.8640 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section.
Page 376 of 425

(1) A copy of each notification and report that you 

submitted to comply with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial Notification or 

Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according 

to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

(2) Records of performance tests as required in 

§63.10(b)(2)(viii).

(3) Records relating to control device maintenance and 

documentation of your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption, if you request such an exemption under 

§63.8570(d).

(b) You must keep the records required in Table 7 to this 

subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission 

limitation and work practice standard that applies to you.

(c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (10) of this section.

(1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each 

alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was 

initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of 

the alarm and the corrective action taken.

(2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter 

value, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief 

explanation of the cause of the deviation, actions taken to 
Page 377 of 425

minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b) and the 

corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation, and whether the deviation 

occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted 

over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions.

(3) For each affected source, records of production rates 

on a fired-product weight basis.

(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 

procedures.

(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

(6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any 

revisions, with records documenting conformance.

(7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs 

(c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section to document proper 

operation of your sanitaryware shuttle kiln.

(i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for 

each product produced in each sanitaryware shuttle kiln. If all 

shuttle kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy 
Page 378 of 425

may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be 

assigned to use in log sheets.

(ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log that details 

the type of product fired in each batch, the corresponding time 

and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of 

whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired.

(iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the 

actual tonnage of product fired in the shuttle kiln and an 

indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage 

for that specific kiln.

(8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance requirements of the sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart.

(9) For periods of startup, records of the date, time, and 

duration of each startup period, logs of the kiln or dryer 

exhaust temperature at the time the first ceramics were placed 

in the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature 

when the kiln or dryer exhaust stopped bypassing the control 

device. For periods of shutdown, records of the date, time, and 

duration of each shutdown period, logs of the kiln or dryer 

exhaust temperature at the time the last ceramics were placed in 

the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature 
Page 379 of 425

when the kiln or dryer exhaust began bypassing the control 

device.

(10) For each malfunction, records of the following 

information:

(i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment.

(ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation.

§63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily 

available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1).

(b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 

for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 

maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.

(c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years 

after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). 

You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Page 380 of 425

Other Requirements and Information

§63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 9 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

§63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the 

U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or 

tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated 

authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that 

agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and 

enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority 

of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph 

(c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the 

U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal 

agency.

(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, 

local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) of this section.
Page 381 of 425

(1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability 

requirements in §§63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date 

requirements in §63.8545, and the non-opacity emission 

limitations in §63.8555.

(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under 

§63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90.

(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) 

and as defined in §63.90.

(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and 

reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90.

(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting 

to the EPA required by this subpart.

§63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air 

Act, in §63.2, and in this section as follows:

Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment 

that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the 

air.

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric 

filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection 

system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that 
Page 382 of 425

operates on triboelectric, light-scattering, lighttransmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings.

Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site 

that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other 

pressed tile, or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, 

and various additives, form the processed materials into tile or 

sanitaryware shapes, and dry and fire the ceramic products.

Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products.

Deviation means any instance in which an affected source 

subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a 

source:

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established 

by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission 

limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice 

standard; or

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 

implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any 

affected source required to obtain such a permit.

Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the sum 

of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 

3 of this subpart.
Page 383 of 425

Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent 

into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.

Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or 

other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric 

filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of 

the sorbent.

Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating 

limit.

Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering 

a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.

Glaze means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent 

material applied to ceramic products before firing.

Glaze line means a production line for glazing ceramic 

products, which includes glaze spraying (typically comprised of 

one or more glaze spray booths) and other types of glazing 

operations (e.g., dipping, flooding, centrifugal disc glazing, 

curtain coating).

Glaze spray booth means a type of equipment used for 

spraying glaze on ceramic products.

Initial startup means the time at which the kiln first 

reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the 
Page 384 of 425

kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source 

begins firing clay ceramics, whichever is earlier.

Kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of clay 

ceramics, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in 

one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). 

If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design 

capacity is considered to be the capacity following 

modifications.

Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this 

subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total 

particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8), and 

as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates 

including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium.

Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption

means a period of time during which the supply of natural gas to 

an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of 

the facility. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural 

gas does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption.
Page 385 of 425

Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that 

is under common control, including properties that are separated 

only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control 

includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the 

same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination 

thereof.

Responsible official means responsible official as defined 

in 40 CFR 70.2.

Roller kiln means a continuous kiln similar to a tunnel 

kiln except that the unfired ceramic product travels through the 

kiln in a single layer on rollers. In the clay ceramics source 

category, roller kilns are used at ceramic tile manufacturing 

plants.

Shuttle kiln means a batch firing kiln that is designed 

with a removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using 

hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress. In the clay 

ceramics source category, shuttle kilns are used at sanitaryware 

manufacturing plants.

Spray dryer means a drying chamber used to form a freeflowing powder from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to 

improve handling and compaction. In the clay ceramics source 

category, spray dryers are used at ceramic tile manufacturing 

plants.
Page 386 of 425

Startup means the setting in operation of an affected 

source and starting the production process.

Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller 

kiln that is used to fire clay ceramics. In the clay ceramics 

source category, tunnel kilns are used at sanitaryware 

manufacturing plants.

Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may 

include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. 

Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.

Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work 

practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is 

promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each emission limit in 

the following table that applies to you:

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits

For each... You must meet the following emission limits...

1. Collection of all 

tunnel or roller 

kilns at facility

HF and HCl emissions must not exceed 62 kilograms per 

hour (kg/hr) (140 pounds per hour (lb/hr)) HCl 

equivalent, under the health-based standard, as 

determined using Equations 4 and 5.

2. Existing floor 

tile roller kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.090 kilogram per 

megagram (kg/Mg) (0.18 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired 

product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 4.6 nanograms 

per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 7% O2.
Page 387 of 425

3. Existing wall tile 

roller kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.099 kg/Mg 

(0.20 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.7 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.16 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

4. Existing firstfire sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg 

(0.33 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

5. Existing tile 

glaze line with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) 

of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

6. Existing 

sanitaryware manual 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

7. Existing 

sanitaryware spray 

machine glaze 

application

PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

8. Existing 

sanitaryware robot 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

9. Existing floor 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% 

O2.

10. Existing wall 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

11. Existing floor 

tile press dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

12. New or 

reconstructed floor 

tile roller kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg 

(0.027 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.9 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E05 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

13. New or 

reconstructed wall 

tile roller kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.15 kg/Mg 

(0.27 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.5 E-06 kg/Mg (3.1 E06 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.160.23 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

14. New or 

reconstructed firsta. PM emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product.
Page 388 of 425

fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.2 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

15. New or 

reconstructed tile 

glaze line with glaze

spraying

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg 

(0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

16. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware manual 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

17. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware spray 

machine glaze 

application

PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

18. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware robot 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

19. New or 

reconstructed floor 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

20. New or 

reconstructed wall 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

21. New or 

reconstructed floor 

tile press dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each operating limit 

in the following table that applies to you:

Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits

For each... You must...

1. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective 

action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and 

complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; 

operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is 

not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating 

time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE 

from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and
Page 389 of 425

b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and 

to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; 

maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product 

basis) at or above the level established during the 

performance test for continuous injection systems.

2. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average pressure drop established 

during the PM performance test; and

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH 

established during the HF/HCl performance test; and

c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-

hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber 

liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM 

performance tests; and

d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the 

average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate 

established during the HF/HCl performance test.

3. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

an ACI 

system.

Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the highest average carbon flow rate 

established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests.

4. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission 

limit without 

an ACI 

system.

If you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit 

without an ACI system, maintain the average kiln operating 

temperature for each 3-hour block period at or above the 

average temperature established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

5. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

with no addon control.

a. Maintain no VE from the stack; and

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process 

rate determined according to §63.8595(g)(1); and

c. Maintain the average kiln operating temperature for each 3-

hour block period at or below the average temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan performance test.

6. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

a FF.

If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective 

action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and 

complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; 

operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is 

not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating 

time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE 

from the FF stack; and
Page 390 of 425

7. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average pressure drop established 

during the PM performance test; and

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-

hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow 

rate established during the PM performance test.

8. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

a water 

curtain.

Conduct daily inspections to verify the presence of water flow 

to the wet control system; and

Conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and 

control equipment for leaks; and

Conduct annual inspections of the interior of the control 

equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural 

integrity and condition of the control equipment.

9. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

baffles.

Conduct an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm 

the baffles are in place.

10. Spray 

dryer.

Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average temperature established 

during the dioxin/furan performance test.

11. Floor 

tile press 

dryer.

Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3-hour 

block period at or below the average temperature established 

during the dioxin/furan performance test.

As stated in §63.8555, you must comply with each work 

practice standard in the following table that applies to you:

Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

For each... You must...

According to one of the following 

requirements...

1. Existing, new, 

or reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln.

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the 

kiln fuel, except during periods of natural 

gas curtailment or supply interruption, as 

defined in §63.8665; and

ii. Develop and use a designed firing time 

and temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the sanitaryware shuttle kiln. 

You must either program the time and 

temperature cycle into your kiln or track 

each step on a log sheet; and

iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln 

with the maximum load (in tons) of product 

that can be fired in the kiln during a 

single firing cycle; and

iv. For each firing load, document the 
Page 391 of 425

total tonnage of product placed in the kiln 

to ensure that it is not greater than the 

maximum load identified in item 1.a.iii; 

and

v. Develop and follow maintenance 

procedures for each kiln that, at a 

minimum, specify the frequency of 

inspection and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that regulate 

air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that 

regulate firing cycles; and

vi. Develop and maintain records for each 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln, as specified in 

§63.8640.

2. Existing, new 

or reconstructed 

kiln or dryer 

during periods of 

startup

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or 

dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature reaches 204 °C (400 °F); and

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, 

begin venting the exhaust from the kiln or 

dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln 

or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C 

(400 °F).

3. Existing, new 

or reconstructed 

kiln or dryer 

during periods of 

shutdown

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or 

dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature falls to 149 °C (300 °F); and

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, 

continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln 

or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or 

dryer exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C 

(300 °F).

As stated in §63.8595, you must conduct each performance 

test in the following table that applies to you:

Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests
Page 392 of 425

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements...

1. Tunnel or 

roller kiln.

a. Select 

locations of 

sampling ports 

and the number of 

traverse points.

Method 1 or 1A 

of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

the APCD and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.

b. Determine 

velocities and 

volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

You may use Method 2A, 

2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1, 

or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2, 

as appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1.

c. Conduct gas 

molecular weight 

analysis.

Method 3 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2.

You may use Method 3A or

3B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, as 

appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 

[Part 10] (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to the 

manual procedures (but

not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 

3A and 3B.

d. Measure 

moisture content 

of the stack gas.

Method 4 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.
Page 393 of 425

e. Measure HF and 

HCl emissions.

i. Method 26A of 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or

You may use Method 26 of

40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, as an alternative 

to using Method 26A of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, when no acid PM 

(e.g., HF or HCl 

dissolved in water 

droplets emitted by 

sources controlled by a 

WS) is present. ASTM 

D6735-01 (Reapproved 

2009) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Methods 

26 and 26A.

ii. Method 320 

of appendix A of 

this part.

When using Method 320 of 

appendix A of this part, 

you must follow the 

analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 

of Method 320 of

appendix A of this part, 

unless you can 

demonstrate that the 

complete spiking 

procedure has been 

conducted at a similar 

source. ASTM D6348-03 

(Reapproved 2010) 

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14) 

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 

320 if the test plan 

preparation and 

implementation in 

Annexes A1-A8 are 

mandatory and the %R in 

Annex A5 is determined 

for each target analyte.

f. Measure PM 

emissions.

i. Method 5 of 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; or

ii. Method 29 of 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8.

To determine PM, weigh 

the filter and report 

the results as PM 

filterable.
Page 394 of 425

g. Measure Hg 

emissions.

Method 29 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8.

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 29 

(portion for Hg only).

h. Measure 

dioxin/furan 

emissions.

Method 23 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7.

2. Glaze 

spray 

operation

a. Select 

locations of 

sampling ports 

and the number of 

traverse points.

Method 1 or 1A 

of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

the APCD and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.

b. Determine 

velocities and 

volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

You may use Method 2A, 

2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1, 

or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2, 

as appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1.

c. Conduct gas 

molecular weight 

analysis.

Method 3 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2.

You may use Method 3A or 

3B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, as 

appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 

[Part 10] (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to the 

manual procedures (but 

not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 

3A and 3B.

d. Measure 

moisture content 

of the stack gas.

Method 4 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.

e. Measure PM 

emissions.

Method 5 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.
Page 395 of 425

f. Measure Hg 

emissions (tile 

glaze spray 

operations only).

Method 29 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8.

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 29 

(portion for Hg only).

3. Spray 

dryer or 

floor tile 

press dryer

a. Select 

locations of 

sampling ports 

and the number of 

traverse points.

Method 1 or 1A 

of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

the APCD and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.

b. Determine 

velocities and 

volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

You may use Method 2A, 

2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1, 

or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2, 

as appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1.

c. Conduct gas 

molecular weight 

analysis.

Method 3 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2.

You may use Method 3A or 

3B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, as 

appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 

[Part 10] (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to the 

manual procedures (but 

not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 

3A and 3B.

d. Measure 

moisture content 

of the stack gas.

Method 4 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.

e. Measure 

dioxin/furan 

emissions.

Method 23 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7.
Page 396 of 425

4. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

with no addon control.

a. Establish the 

operating 

limit(s) for kiln 

process rate if 

the total 

facility maximum 

potential HClequivalent 

emissions are 

greater than the 

HCl-equivalent 

limit in Table 1 

to this subpart.

HCl-equivalent 

limit in Table 1 

to this subpart 

and emissions 

and production 

data from the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance 

test.

Using the procedures in 

§63.8595(g)(1), you must 

determine the maximum 

process rate(s) for your 

kiln(s) that would 

ensure total facility 

maximum potential HClequivalent emissions 

remain at or below the 

HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart. 

The maximum process 

rate(s) would become 

your site-specific 

process rate operating 

limit(s).

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for kiln 

operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the kiln 

operating temperature, 

determine and record the 

block average 

temperature values for 

the three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific operating 

limit.

5. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

that is 

complying 

with PM 

and/or Hg 

productionbased 

emission 

limits.

Determine the 

production rate 

during each PM/Hg 

test run in order 

to determine 

compliance with 

PM and/or Hg 

production-based 

emission limits.

Production data 

collected during 

the PM/Hg 

performance 

tests (e.g., the 

number of 

ceramic pieces 

and weight per 

piece in the 

kiln during a 

test run divided 

by the amount of 

time to fire a 

piece).

You must measure and 

record the production 

rate, on a fired-product 

weight basis, of the 

affected kiln for each 

of the three test runs.
Page 397 of 425

6. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the lime 

feeder setting.

Data from the 

lime feeder 

during the 

HF/HCl 

performance 

test.

For continuous lime 

injection systems, you 

must ensure that lime in 

the feed hopper or silo 

and to the APCD is freeflowing at all times 

during the performance 

test and record the 

feeder setting, on a per 

ton of fired product 

basis, for the three 

test runs. If the feed 

rate setting varies 

during the three test 

runs, determine and 

record the average feed 

rate from the three test 

runs. The average of the 

three test runs 

establishes your minimum 

site-specific feed rate 

operating limit.

7. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber pressure 

drop.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during 

the PM 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

pressure drop, determine 

and record the block 

average pressure drop 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pressure drop 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

pH.

Data from the pH 

measurement 

device during 

the HF/HCl 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid pH, determine and 

record the block average 

pH values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pH measurements 

for the three test runs.

The average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid pH 

operating limit.
Page 398 of 425

c. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

flow rate.

Data from the 

flow rate 

measurement 

device during 

the HF/HCl and 

PM performance 

tests.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid flow rate, 

determine and record the 

block average flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded flow rate 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid flow 

rate operating level. If 

different average wet 

scrubber liquid flow 

rate values are measured 

during the HF/HCl and PM

tests, the highest of 

the average values 

become your sitespecific operating 

limit.

8. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a WS that 

includes 

chemical 

addition to 

the water.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber chemical 

feed rate.

Data from the 

chemical feed 

rate measurement 

device during

the HF/HCl 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

chemical feed rate, 

determine and record the 

block average chemical 

feed rate values for the 

three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded chemical 

feed rate measurements 

for the three test runs. 

The average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific chemical 

addition rate operating 

limit.
Page 399 of 425

9. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

an ACI system

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

carbon flow rate.

Data from the 

carbon flow rate 

measurement 

conducted during 

the Hg 

performance 

test.

You must measure the 

carbon flow rate during 

each test run, determine 

and record the block 

average carbon flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded carbon flow 

rate measurements for 

the three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific activated 

carbon flow rate 

operating limit.

10. Tunnel or

roller kiln 

intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission 

limit without 

an ACI 

system.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for kiln 

operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the kiln 

operating temperature, 

determine and record the 

block average 

temperature values for 

the three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific operating 

limit.

11. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber pressure 

drop.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during 

the PM 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

pressure drop, determine 

and record the block 

average pressure drop 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pressure drop 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
Page 400 of 425

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

flow rate.

Data from the 

flow rate 

measurement 

device during 

the PM 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid flow rate, 

determine and record the 

block average flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded flow rate 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid flow 

rate operating limit.

12. Spray 

dryer.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the operating 

temperature, determine 

and record the block 

average temperature 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific operating 

limit.

13. Floor 

tile press 

dryer.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the operating 

temperature, determine 

and record the block 

average temperature 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your maximum sitespecific operating 

limit.
Page 401 of 425

As stated in §63.8595(f)(3), you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies to 

you by calculating the sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs using the 

TEFs in the following table:

Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63—Toxic Equivalency Factors

For each dioxin/furan congener...

You must calculate its 

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ using the 

following TEF...

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.01

Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.3

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.03

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.01

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.01

Octachlorodibenzofuran 0.0003

As stated in §63.8605, you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Page 402 of 425

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial compliance 

if...

1. Collection 

of all tunnel 

or roller kilns 

at the 

facility.

a. HF, HCl, and 

Cl2 emissions 

must not exceed 

62 kg/hr (140 

lb/hr) HCl 

equivalent.

i. You measure HF and HCl emissions for 

each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8 or its alternative, 

ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009) 

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14); 

or Method 320 of appendix A of this part 

or its alternative, ASTM D6348-03 

(Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14); and

ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF for each kiln using 

Equation 4 to this subpart; and

iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values for 

all kilns at the facility using Equation 5 

to this subpart; and

iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent does 

not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/hr).

2. Existing 

floor tile 

roller kiln.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.090 kg/Mg 

(0.18 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.090 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

applicable operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour 

performance test during which PM emissions 

did not exceed 0.090 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

6.3 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.3 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.
Page 403 of 425

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 4.6 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

3. Existing 

wall tile 

roller kiln 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg 

(0.20 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.17

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
Page 404 of 425

4. Existing 

first-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.17 kg/Mg 

(0.33 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.3 E-04 kg/Mg 

(2.6 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 1.5 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

5. Existing 

tile glaze line 

with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.93 kg/Mg 

(1.9 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg 

(1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
Page 405 of 425

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.6 E-04 lb/ton) 

of glaze sprayed.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of glaze 

sprayed.

6. Existing 

sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

16 kg/Mg 

(33 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 16 kg/Mg 

(33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

7. Existing 

sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

6.2 kg/Mg 

(12 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg 

(12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

8. Existing 

sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

4.4 kg/Mg 

(8.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg 

(8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

9. Existing 

floor tile 

spray dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 44 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 44 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and
Page 406 of 425

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

10. Existing 

wall tile spray 

dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.12 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

11. Existing 

floor tile 

press dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.19 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

12. New or 

reconstructed 

floor tile 

roller kiln.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.014 kg/Mg 

(0.027 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(3.9 E-05 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 1.9 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E-05 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and
Page 407 of 425

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

1.9 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E-05 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 1.5 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

13. New or 

reconstructed 

wall tile 

roller kiln. 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg 

(0.20 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.17

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and
Page 408 of 425

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

14. New or 

reconstructed 

first-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.047 kg/Mg 

(0.095 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

6.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.2 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 6.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.2 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

6.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.2 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.37 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

15. New or 

reconstructed 

tile glaze line 

with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.30 kg/Mg 

(0.61 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg 

(0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and
Page 409 of 425

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.6 E-04 lb/ton) 

of glaze sprayed.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of glaze 

sprayed.

16. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

1.9 kg/Mg 

(3.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg 

(3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

17. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

1.6 kg/Mg 

(3.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg 

(3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

18. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

1.1 kg/Mg 

(2.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg 

(2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
Page 410 of 425

19. New or 

reconstructed 

floor tile 

spray dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.17

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

20. New or 

reconstructed

wall tile spray 

dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.12 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

21. New or 

reconstructed 

floor tile 

press dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.19

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

22. Existing, 

new, or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln.

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions.

i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the 

kiln fuel; and

ii. Develop a designed firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the sanitaryware shuttle kiln. 

You must either program the time and 

temperature cycle into your kiln or track 

each step on a log sheet; and

iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln 

with the maximum load (in tons) of product 

that can be fired in the kiln during a 

single firing cycle; and

iv. Develop maintenance procedures for 

each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the 

frequency of inspection and maintenance of 

temperature monitoring devices, controls 

that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and 

controls that regulate firing cycles.
Page 411 of 425

As stated in §63.8620, you must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

For each...

For the 

following...

You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance by...

1. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with a 

DIFF or DLS/FF.

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 1 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with DIFF 

or DLS/FF.

i. If you use a bag leak detection 

system, initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour of a bag leak detection 

system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with 

your OM&M plan; operating and 

maintaining the fabric filter such 

that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period; in calculating this 

operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that no corrective 

action is required, no alarm time is 

counted; if corrective action is 

required, each alarm is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer 

than 1 hour to initiate corrective 

action, the alarm time is counted as 

the actual amount of time taken by 

you to initiate corrective action; or 

performing VE observations of the 

DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency 

specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 

22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; 

and maintaining no VE from the DIFF 

or DLS/FF stack; and 

ii. Verifying that lime is freeflowing via a load cell, carrier 

gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas 

pressure drop measurement system, or 

other system; recording all monitor 

or sensor output, and if lime is 

found not to be free flowing, 

promptly initiating and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with 

your OM&M plan; recording the feeder 

setting once each shift of operation 

to verify that the feeder setting is 

being maintained at or above the 

level established during the HF/HCl 
Page 412 of 425

performance test.

2. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with a 

WS.

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 2 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure 

drop data according to §63.8600(a); 

reducing the scrubber pressure drop 

data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8600(a); maintaining 

the average scrubber pressure drop 

for each 3-hour block period at or 

above the average pressure drop 

established during the PM performance 

test; and

ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH 

data according to §63.8600(a); 

reducing the scrubber liquid pH data 

to 3-hour block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average 

scrubber liquid pH established during 

the HF/HCl performance test; and

iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid 

flow rate data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber 

liquid flow rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8600(a); 

maintaining the average scrubber 

liquid flow rate for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the highest 

average scrubber liquid flow rate 

established during the HF/HCl and PM 

performance tests; and

iv. If chemicals are added to the 

scrubber water, collecting the 

scrubber chemical feed rate data 

according to §63.8600(a); reducing 

the scrubber chemical feed rate data 

to 3-hour block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber chemical feed rate for each 

3-hour block period at or above the 

average scrubber chemical feed rate 

established during the HF/HCl 

performance test.

3. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with an 

ACI system.

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 3 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

kilns equipped with 

ACI system.

Collecting the carbon flow rate data 

according to §63.8600(a); reducing 

the carbon flow rate data to 3-hour 

block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

carbon flow rate for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the highest 

average carbon flow rate established 

during the Hg and dioxin/furan 

performance tests.
Page 413 of 425

4. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission limit 

without an ACI 

system.

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 4 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

kilns intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission limit 

without an ACI 

system.

Collecting the kiln operating 

temperature data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the kiln 

operating temperature data to 3-hour 

block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

kiln operating temperature for each 

3-hour block period at or below the 

average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

5. Tunnel or 

roller kiln with 

no add-on control

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 5 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for tunnel 

or roller kilns 

with no add-on 

control.

i. Performing VE observations of the 

stack at the frequency specified in 

§63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-7; and 

maintaining no VE from the stack.

ii. If your last calculated total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent was not at or below the 

health-based standard in Table 1 to 

this subpart, collecting the kiln 

process rate data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the kiln 

process rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8600(a); 

maintaining the average kiln process 

rate for each 3-hour block period at 

or below the kiln process rate 

determined according to 

§63.8595(g)(1).

iii. Collecting the kiln operating 

temperature data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the kiln 

operating temperature data to 3-hour 

block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

kiln operating temperature for each 

3-hour block period at or above the 

average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

6. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with a 

FF.

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 6 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

glaze spray 

If you use a bag leak detection 

system, initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour of a bag leak detection 

system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with 

your OM&M plan; operating and 

maintaining the fabric filter such 
Page 414 of 425

operations equipped 

with a FF.

that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period; in calculating this 

operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that no corrective 

action is required, no alarm time is 

counted; if corrective action is 

required, each alarm is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer 

than 1 hour to initiate corrective 

action, the alarm time is counted as 

the actual amount of time taken by 

you to initiate corrective action; or 

performing VE observations of the FF 

stack at the frequency specified in 

§63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-7; and 

maintaining no VE from the FF stack.

7. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with a 

WS.

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 7 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure 

drop data according to §63.8600(a); 

reducing the scrubber pressure drop 

data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8600(a); maintaining 

the average scrubber pressure drop 

for each 3-hour block period at or 

above the average pressure drop 

established during the PM performance 

test; and

ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid 

flow rate data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber 

liquid flow rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8600(a); 

maintaining the average scrubber 

liquid flow rate for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate established 

during the PM performance test.

8. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with a 

water curtain.

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 8 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with a 

water curtain.

Conducting daily inspections to 

verify the presence of water flow to 

the wet control system; and

Conducting weekly visual inspections 

of the system ductwork and control 

equipment for leaks; and

Conducting annual inspections of the 

interior of the control equipment (if 
Page 415 of 425

applicable) to determine the 

structural integrity and condition of 

the control equipment.

9. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with 

baffles.

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 9 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

kilns equipped with 

baffles.

Conducting an annual visual 

inspection of the baffles to confirm 

the baffles are in place.

10. Spray dryer Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 10 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

spray dryers.

Collecting the operating temperature

data according to §63.8600(a); 

reducing the operating temperature

data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8600(a); maintaining 

the average operating temperature for 

each 3-hour block period at or above

the average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

11. Floor tile 

press dryer

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 11 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

floor tile press 

dryers.

Collecting the operating temperature

data according to §63.8600(a); 

reducing the operating temperature

data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8600(a); maintaining 

the average operating temperature for 

each 3-hour block period at or below

the average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

12. Sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions.

i. Maintaining records documenting 

your use of natural gas, or an 

equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel at 

all times except during periods of 

natural gas curtailment or supply 

interruption; and

ii. If you intend to use an 

alternative fuel, submitting a 

notification of alternative fuel use 

within 48 hours of the declaration of 

a period of natural gas curtailment 

or supply interruption, as defined in 

§63.8665; and

iii. Submitting a report of 

alternative fuel use within 10 

working days after terminating the 

use of the alternative fuel, as 

specified in §63.8635(g); and

iv. Using a designed firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the shuttle kiln; and
Page 416 of 425

v. For each firing load, documenting

the total tonnage of product placed 

in the kiln to ensure that it is not 

greater than the maximum load

identified in Item 1.a.iii of Table 3 

to this subpart; and

vi. Following maintenance procedures 

for each kiln that, at a minimum,

specify the frequency of inspection 

and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that 

regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and 

controls that regulate firing cycles; 

and

vii. Developing and maintaining 

records for each shuttle kiln, as 

specified in §63.8640.

As stated in §63.8635, you must submit each report that 

applies to you according to the following table:

Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

You must 

submit... The report must contain...

You must submit 

the report...

1. A compliance 

report.

a. If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitations or work practice 

standards that apply to you, a 

statement that there were no deviations 

from the emission limitations or work 

practice standards during the reporting 

period. If there were no periods during 

which the CMS was out-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, a 

statement that there were no periods 

during which the CMS was out-of-control 

during the reporting period.

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8635(b).

b. If you have a deviation from any 

emission limitation (emission limit, 

operating limit) during the reporting 

period, the report must contain the 

information in §63.8635(d) or (e). If 

there were periods during which the CMS 

was out-of-control, as specified in 

your OM&M plan, the report must contain 

the information in §63.8635(e).

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8635(b).
Page 417 of 425

2. A report of 

alternative fuel 

use.

The information in §63.8635(g). If you are subject 

to the work 

practice standards 

specified in Table 

3 to this subpart, 

and you use an 

alternative fuel 

to fire an 

affected kiln, by 

letter within 10 

working days after 

terminating the 

use of the 

alternative fuel.

As stated in §63.8655, you must comply with the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according 

to the following table:

Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart KKKKK

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart KKKKK?

§63.1 Applicability. Initial applicability 

determination; 

applicability after 

standard established; 

permit requirements; 

extensions, 

notifications.

Yes.

§63.2 Definitions. Definitions for part 63 

standards.

Yes.

§63.3 Units and 

Abbreviations.

Units and abbreviations 

for part 63 standards.

Yes.

§63.4 Prohibited 

Activities.

Compliance date; 

circumvention; 

severability.

Yes.

§63.5 Construction/

Reconstruction.

Applicability; 

applications; approvals.

Yes.

§63.6(a) Applicability. General Provisions (GP) 

apply unless compliance 

extension; GP apply to 

area sources that become 

major.

Yes.
Page 418 of 425

§63.6(b)(1)-(4) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at 

effective date; 3 years 

after effective date; 

upon startup; 10 years 

after construction or 

reconstruction commences 

for section 112(f).

Yes.

§63.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if commenced 

construction or 

reconstruction after 

proposal.

Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved].

§63.6(b)(7) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

Area Sources 

That Become 

Major.

Area sources that become 

major must comply with 

major source standards 

immediately upon 

becoming major, 

regardless of whether 

required to comply when 

they were area sources.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(1)-(2) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing 

Sources.

Comply according to date 

in subpart, which must 

be no later than 3 years 

after effective date; 

for section 112(f) 

standards, comply within 

90 days of effective 

date unless compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)-(4) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(c)(5) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing Area 

Sources That 

Become Major.

Area sources that become 

major must comply with 

major source standards 

by date indicated in 

subpart or by equivalent 

time period (for 

example, 3 years).

Yes.

§63.6(d) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(1)(i) Operation & 

Maintenance.

General Duty to minimize 

emissions.

No. See 

§63.8570(b) 

for general 

duty 

requirement.

§63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation & 

Maintenance.

Requirement to correct 

malfunctions ASAP.

No.

§63.6(e)(1)(iii) Operation &

Maintenance.

Operation and 

maintenance requirements 

enforceable independent 

of emissions 

limitations.

Yes.
Page 419 of 425

§63.6(e)(2) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(3) Startup,

Shutdown, and

Malfunction

Plan (SSMP).

Requirement for startup, 

shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) and 

SSMP; content of SSMP. 

No.

§63.6(f)(1) Compliance 

Except During 

SSM.

You must comply with 

emission standards at 

all times except during 

SSM.

No.

§63.6(f)(2)-(3) Methods for 

Determining 

Compliance.

Compliance based on 

performance test, 

operation and 

maintenance plans, 

records, inspection.

Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative

Standard.

Procedures for getting 

an alternative standard.

Yes.

§63.6(h) Opacity/VE 

Standards.

Requirements for opacity 

and VE standards.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.6(i) Compliance 

Extension.

Procedures and criteria 

for Administrator to 

grant compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.6(j) Presidential 

Compliance 

Exemption.

President may exempt 

source category.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(1)-(2) Performance 

Test Dates.

Dates for conducting 

initial performance 

testing and other 

compliance 

demonstrations for 

emission limits and work 

practice standards; must 

conduct 180 days after 

first subject to rule.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(3) Section 114 

Authority.

Administrator may 

require a performance 

test under CAA section 

114 at any time.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(4) Notification of 

Delay in 

Performance 

Testing Due To 

Force Majeure.

Must notify 

Administrator of delay 

in performance testing 

due to force majeure.

Yes.

§63.7(b)(1) Notification of 

Performance 

Test.

Must notify 

Administrator 60 days 

before the test.

Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of 

Rescheduling.

Must notify 

Administrator 5 days 

before scheduled date of 

rescheduled date.

Yes.
Page 420 of 425

§63.7(c) Quality 

Assurance (QA)/ 

Test Plan.

Requirements; test plan 

approval procedures; 

performance audit 

requirements; internal 

and external QA 

procedures for testing.

Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing 

Facilities.

Requirements for testing 

facilities.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Performance tests must 

be conducted under 

representative 

conditions.

No, §63.8595 

specifies 

requirements.

Cannot conduct 

performance tests during 

SSM; not a violation to 

exceed standard during 

SSM.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(2)-(3) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Must conduct according 

to subpart and EPA test 

methods unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative; must have 

at least three test runs 

of at least 1 hour each; 

compliance is based on 

arithmetic mean of three 

runs; conditions when 

data from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under 

Section 114

Administrator's 

authority to require 

testing under section 

114 of the Act.

Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative

Test Method.

Procedures by which 

Administrator can grant 

approval to use an 

alternative test method.

Yes.

§63.7(g) Performance 

Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data in 

performance test report; 

must submit performance 

test data 60 days after 

end of test with the 

notification of 

compliance status.

Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of 

Tests.

Procedures for 

Administrator to waive 

performance test.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability

of Monitoring

Requirements.

Subject to all 

monitoring requirements 

in subpart.

Yes.
Page 421 of 425

§63.8(a)(2) Performance 

Specifications.

Performance 

Specifications in 

appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No.

§63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with 

Flares.

Requirements for flares 

in §63.11 apply.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct monitoring 

according to standard 

unless Administrator 

approves alternative.

Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)-(3) Multiple 

Effluents and 

Multiple 

Monitoring 

Systems.

Specific requirements 

for installing and 

reporting on monitoring 

systems.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring 

System 

Operation and 

Maintenance.

Maintenance consistent 

with good air pollution 

control practices.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and 

Predictable 

SSM.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

described in SSMP.

No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in 

SSMP.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

not described in SSMP.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Requirements.

How Administrator 

determines if source 

complying with operation 

and maintenance 

requirements.

No.

§63.8(c)(2)-(3) Monitoring 

System 

Installation.

Must install to get 

representative emission 

and parameter 

measurements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS 

Requirements.

Requirements for CMS. No, §63.8600 

specifies 

requirements.

§63.8(c)(5) Continuous 

Opacity 

Monitoring 

System (COMS) 

Minimum 

Procedures.

COMS minimum procedures. No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(c)(6) CMS 

Requirements.

Zero and high level 

calibration check 

requirements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(7)-(8) CMS 

Requirements.

Out-of-control periods. Yes.
Page 422 of 425

§63.8(d) CMS Quality 

Control.

Requirements for CMS 

quality control.

Yes.

§63.8(e) CMS Performance

Evaluation.

Requirements for CMS 

performance evaluation.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(1)-(5) Alternative

Monitoring

Method.

Procedures for 

Administrator to approve 

alternative monitoring.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to

Relative 

Accuracy Test.

Procedures for 

Administrator to approve 

alternative relative 

accuracy test for 

continuous emission 

monitoring systems 

(CEMS).

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(g) Data Reduction. COMS and CEMS data 

reduction requirements.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(a) Notification

Requirements.

Applicability; State 

delegation.

Yes.

§63.9(b) Initial 

Notifications.

Requirements for initial 

notifications.

Yes.

§63.9(c) Request for

Compliance

Extension.

Can request if cannot 

comply by date or if 

installed BACT/LAER.

Yes.

§63.9(d) Notification of 

Special

Compliance

Requirements

for New Source.

For sources that 

commence construction 

between proposal and 

promulgation and want to 

comply 3 years after 

effective date.

Yes.

§63.9(e) Notification of 

Performance

Test.

Notify Administrator 60 

days prior.

Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of 

VE/Opacity

Test.

Notify Administrator 30 

days prior.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(g)(1) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of 

performance evaluation.

Yes.

§63.9(g)(2)-(3) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of COMS 

data use; notification 

that relative accuracy 

alternative criterion 

were exceeded.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(h) Notification of 

Compliance

Status.

Contents; submittal 

requirements.

Yes.
Page 423 of 425

§63.9(i) Adjustment of

Submittal 

Deadlines.

Procedures for 

Administrator to approve 

change in when 

notifications must be 

submitted.

Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in 

Previous 

Information.

Must submit within 15 

days after the change.

Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Applicability; general 

information.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(1) General 

Recordkeeping 

Requirements.

General requirements. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

occurrence and duration 

of startups and 

shutdowns.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

failures to meet a 

standard.

No. See 

§63.8640(c)(2) 

for 

recordkeeping 

of (1) date, 

time and 

duration; (2) 

listing of 

affected 

source or 

equipment, and 

an estimate of 

the volume of 

each regulated 

pollutant 

emitted over 

the standard; 

and (3) 

actions to 

minimize 

emissions and 

correct the 

failure.

§63.10(b)(2)(iii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Maintenance records. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(v)

Records Related 

to SSM.

Actions taken to 

minimize emissions 

during SSM.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(xii) and (xiv)

CMS Records. Records when CMS is 

malfunctioning, 

inoperative or out-ofcontrol.

Yes.
Page 424 of 425

§63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records. Records when using 

alternative to relative 

accuracy test.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(b)(3) Records. Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes.

§63.10(c)(1)-(15) Records. Additional records for 

CMS.

No, §§63.8575 

and 63.8640 

specify 

requirements.

§63.10(d)(1) and 

(2)

General 

Reporting

Requirements.

Requirements for 

reporting; performance 

test results reporting.

Yes.

§63.10(d)(3) Reporting 

Opacity or VE

Observations.

Requirements for 

reporting opacity and 

VE.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(d)(4) Progress 

Reports.

Must submit progress 

reports on schedule if 

under compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.10(d)(5) SSM Reports. Contents and submission. No. See 

§63.8635(f) 

for 

malfunction 

reporting 

requirements.

§63.10(e)(1)-(3) Additional CMS 

Reports.

Requirements for CMS 

reporting.

No, §§63.8575 

and 63.8635 

specify 

requirements.

§63.10(e)(4) Reporting COMS 

data.

Requirements for 

reporting COMS data with 

performance test data.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(f) Waiver for

Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Procedures for 

Administrator to waive.

Yes.

§63.11 Flares. Requirement for flares. No, not 

applicable.

§63.12 Delegation. State authority to 

enforce standards.

Yes.

§63.13 Addresses. Addresses for reports, 

notifications, requests.

Yes.

§63.14 Incorporation 

by Reference.

Materials incorporated 

by reference.

Yes.

§63.15 Availability of 

Information.

Information 

availability; 

confidential 

information.

Yes.
Page 425 of 425

§63.16 Performance 

Track 

Provisions.

Requirements for

Performance Track member 

facilities.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

6560-50-P

E.O. 12866_Brick & Clay 2060-AP69 NPRM_20140916

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; FRL-9913-58-OAR]

RIN 2060-AP69

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Brickbrick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturingstructural clay products manufacturing and NESHAP

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturingclay ceramics manufacturing. The 

EPA is proposing that all major sources in these categories meet 

maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for 

mercury, non-mercury metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or 

particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay 

Ceramics only); health-based standards for acid gas HAP; and

work practice standards, where applicable. The proposed rule, 

which has been informed by input from industry and other 

stakeholders, including small businesses, would protect air 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 2 of 444 Formatted: Normal

quality and promote public health by reducing emissions of HAP

listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [insert 

date 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal 

Register]. A copy of comments on the information collection 

provisions should be submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) on or before [insert date 30 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register].

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing by [insert dateINSERT DATE 5 days after the date 

of publication in the Federal Register],DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the EPA will hold a public 

hearing on [insert dateINSERT DATE 15 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal RegisterDAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern 

Standard Time] to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. 

EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. If you are 

interested in requesting a public hearing or attending the 

public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541–7966 or 

garrett.pamela@epa.gov. If the EPA holds a public hearing, the 

EPA will keep the record of the hearing open for 30 days after 

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Italic

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 3 of 444 Formatted: Normal

completion of the hearing to provide an opportunity for 

submission of rebuttal and supplementary information.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket 

ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov: 

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Email: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing or EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing in the subject line of the message.

• Fax: (202) 566-9744.

• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center

(EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0291 (for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing) or EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 (for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 

20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on 

the information collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

Formatted: Approved Text Underline
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 4 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA 

WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing or EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous 

access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email

address will be automatically captured and included as part of 

the comment that is placed in the public docket and made 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 5 of 444 Formatted: Normal

available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 

the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should not include special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket 

Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Docket. The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking 

under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents in 

the dockets are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov 

or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 6 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA 

requestingrequested by [INSERT DATE 5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], we will hold a public 

hearing by [insert date 5 days after the date of publication in 

the Federal Register], the public hearing will be held on 

[insert dateINSERT DATE 15 days after the date of publication in 

the Federal Register] at the EPA’s campus at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The hearing will 

begin at DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], from 1:00 p.m. ([Eastern Standard Time) and conclude 

at] to 5:00 p.m. ([Eastern Standard Time).] at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Park, NC 27711. Please contact Ms. 

Pamela Garrett atof the Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–-7966 or; email address:

garrett.pamela@epa.gov; to request a hearing, register to speak 

at the hearing or to inquire as to whether or not a hearing will 

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Italic

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 7 of 444 Formatted: Normal

be held. The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the 

hearing will be [insert date 12 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register].INSERT DATE 12 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Additionally, requests to 

speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing 

registration desk, although preferences on speaking times may 

not be able to be fulfilled. If you require the service of a 

translator or special accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the time of registration. If 

you require an accommodation we ask that you pre-register for 

the hearing, as we may not be able to arrange such 

accommodations without advance notice.

If no one contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing to 

be held concerning this proposed rule by [insert date 5 days 

after the date of publication in the Federal Register], a 

public The hearing will not take place. If a hearing is held, 

it will provide interested parties the opportunity to present 

data, views or arguments concerning the supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemakingaction. The EPA will make every effort to 

accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. 

Because thethis hearing will beis being held at ana U.S. 

government facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing 

should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the 

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 8 of 444 Formatted: Normal

security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. 

Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, 

established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If 

your driver’s license is issued by Alaska, American Samoa, 

Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

Montana, New York, Oklahoma, or the state of Washington, you 

must present an additional form of identification to enter the 

federal building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification 

include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver’s 

licenses and military identification cards. In addition, you 

will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings 

you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be 

required to return this property pass to the security desk. No 

large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be 

used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be 

allowed on federal property for security reasons.

The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the 

presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public hearing. Commenters should notify Ms. Garrett if they will 

need specific equipment, or if there are other special needs related to providing comments at the 

hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in the 

docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font

color: Black

Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: Double,

Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Font

color: Black
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 9 of 444 Formatted: Normal

possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of 

schedule or behind schedule. Again, a hearing will not be held on this rulemaking 

unless requested. PleaseA hearing needs to be requested by [INSERT DATE 

5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Again, please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett atof the Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–-7966 or garrett.pamela@epa.gov; 

email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov to request or register to speak at the 

hearing or to inquire as to whether or not a hearing will be held.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the 

proposed rule for Brick and Structural Clay Products

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, contact Mr. Jeff

TelanderMs. Sharon Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, 

Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-04), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone 

number: (919) 541-54272825; Fax number: (919) 541-5450; Email 

address: telander.jeff@epa.govnizich.sharon@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. This preamble includes 

several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial 

processes, data inventories and risk modeling. While this list 

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Font

color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Courier New, Font color: Text 1
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 10 of 444 Formatted: Normal

may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and 

for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here:

3xRDL representative detection level values multiplied by 

three

ACI activated carbon injection

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model

APCD air pollution control device

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BDL below detection limit

BLD bag leak detection

BSCP brick and structural clay products

CAA Clean Air Act

CalEPA California EPA

CAS Chemical Abstract Services

CBI Confidential Business Information

CDX Central Data Exchange

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Cl2 chlorine

CO carbon monoxide

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter

DLA dry limestone adsorber

DLL detection level limited

DLS/FF dry lime scrubber/fabric filter

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FF fabric filter

FTIR Fourier transform infrared

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot

HAP hazardous air pollutant

HCl hydrogen chloride

HEM-3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 

1.3.1)

HF hydrogen fluoride

Hg mercury

HQ hazard quotient
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 11 of 444 Formatted: Normal

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

ICR information collection request

IOM Institute of Medicine

IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

K kurtosis statistic

lb/hr pounds per hour

lb/ton pounds per ton

LML lowest measured level

MACT maximum achievable control technology

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter

μg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

MMBtu/yr million British thermal units per year

MRL Minimal Risk Level

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment

NEI National Emissions Inventory

NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air 

pollutants

ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

No. number

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAEL no observable adverse effect level

non-Hg non-mercury

NOX nitrogen oxides

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

O2 oxygen

OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring

OMB Office of Management and Budget

% percent

PIC products of incomplete combustion

PLC programmable logic controller

PM particulate matter

PM2.5 particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 

micrometers in diameter

RDL representative detection level

REL reference exposure level

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RfC reference concentration

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

S skewness statistic

SBA Small Business Administration

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 12 of 444 Formatted: Normal

SBE Standard Brick Equivalent

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SBE Standard Brick Equivalent

SEK standard error of kurtosis

SER small entity representative

SES standard error of skewness

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction

TCDD tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

TEQ 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index

tph tons per hour

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

μg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

UPL Upper Prediction Limit

VCS voluntary consensus standards

VE visible emissions

WHO World Health Organization

Organization of This Document. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

B. Does this action apply to me?

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed rule?

B. What is the background for startup, shutdown and malfunction?

C. What is the history of the proposed rule?

D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the 

Brick and Structural Clay Products and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source categories?

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

B. What are the affected sources?
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 13 of 444 Formatted: Normal

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floor for new sources?

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing 

sources?

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

Q. What are the alternate approaches the EPA is considering?

V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Category

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

B. What are the affected sources?

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 14 of 444 Formatted: Normal

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing 

sources?

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

VII. Summary of the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the cost and emission reduction impacts?

B. What are the secondary impacts?

C. What are the economic impacts?

D. What are the social costs and benefits of the proposed rule?
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 15 of 444 Formatted: Normal

VIII. Public Participation and Request for Comment

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA 

to set emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of 

the MACT. We issued the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products (BSCP) manufacturing and the NESHAP for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing on May 16, 2003. The two NESHAP were vacated and 

remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007. To address the vacatur 

and remand of the original NESHAP, we are proposing new 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 16 of 444 Formatted: Normal

standards for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturingmanufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing.

2. Summary of the Major Provisions

BSCP NESHAP. The EPA is proposing MACT emission limits for 

mercury (Hg) and non-mercury (non-Hg) HAP metals (or particulate 

matter (PM)PM surrogate) and a health-based emission limit for 

acid gases (hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl) and 

chlorine (Cl2)) for BSCP tunnel kilns. In addition, the EPA is 

proposing work practice standards for periodic kilns, for 

dioxins/furans from tunnel kilns and for periods of startup and 

shutdown for tunnel kilns. To demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits, the EPA is proposing initial and repeat 5-year 

performance testing for the regulated pollutants, continuous 

parameter monitoring and daily visible emissions (VE) checks. 

Owners/operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are equipped with a 

fabric filter (FF) (e.g., dry lime injection fabric filter 

(DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF)) have the 

option of demonstrating compliance using a bag leak detection

(BLD) system instead of daily VE checks.

Clay Ceramics NESHAP. The EPA is proposing MACT emission 

limits for Hg, PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and 

dioxins/furans and health-based emission limits for acid gases 

(HF and HCl) for sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 17 of 444 Formatted: Normal

roller kilns. In addition, the EPA is proposing MACT emission 

limits for dioxins/furans for ceramic tile spray dryers and 

floor tile press dryers, MACT emission limits for Hg and PM

(surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for ceramic tile glaze lines 

and MACT emission limits for PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals) for sanitaryware glaze spray booths. The EPA is also 

proposing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and for 

periods of startup and shutdown. To demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits, the EPA is proposing initial and repeat 5-

year performance testing for the regulated pollutants,

continuous parameter monitoring and daily VE checks. 

Owners/operators whose affected sources are equipped with a FF

(e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) have the option of demonstrating compliance 

using a BLD system instead of daily VE checks.

3. Costs and Benefits

Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits 

of this proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP), while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes 

the costs of this proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). See section VII of 

this preamble for further discussion of the costs and benefits 

for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the costs for the Clay 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 18 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. See section IX.B of this preamble 

for discussion of the recordkeeping and reporting costs.

Table 1—Summary of the Costs and Benefits of 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart JJJJJ (millions of 2011 dollars)

Requirement Capital cost Annual cost Net benefit

Emission controls $54.9 $18.4 $26 to $99

Emissions testing $0.977 $0.238

Monitoring -- $0.346

Table 2—Summary of the Costs of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KKKKK

(millions of 2011 dollars)

Requirement Capital cost Annual cost

Emission controls $0 $0

Emissions testing $0.102 $0.0249

Monitoring -- $0.0209

B. Does this action apply to me?

The regulated categories and entities potentially affected

by the proposed standards are shown in Table 3 of this preamble:

Table 3—NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by this 

Proposed Action

Category

NAICS 

codea

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities

Industry.... 327120 Brick, structural clay and 

extruded tile manufacturing 

facilities (BSCP NESHAP); and 

ceramic wall and floor tile 

manufacturing facilities (Clay 

Ceramics NESHAP).

327110 Vitreous plumbing fixtures 

(sanitaryware) manufacturing 

facilities (Clay Ceramics 

NESHAP).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 19 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Federal government... ... Not affected.

State/local/tribal 

government...

... Not affected.

a North American Industry Classification System

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility, 

company, business, organization, etc., would be regulated by 

this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40 

CFR 63.8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP). If you have any questions regarding the applicability 

of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact either 

the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 

Provisions).

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this action is available on the Internet through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for 

information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, 

the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 20 of 444 Formatted: Normal

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/brickpg.html. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post 

the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical 

documents at this same Web site.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the 

part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete 

version of the comments that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that 

it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not 

be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the following address: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 21 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), 

OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0291 (for BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0290 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP).

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed rule?

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions 

standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on 

the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing 

sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions 

information) or the best performing five sources for source 

categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) 

and (B)). This level of minimum stringency is called the MACT 

floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as 

stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also 

must consider more stringent “beyond-the-floor” control options. 

When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider 

not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 22 of 444 Formatted: Normal

but must take into account the associated costs, energy and 

nonair environmental impacts when doing so.

B. What is the background for startup, shutdown and malfunction?

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions 

in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions 

of HAP during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or 

limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM 

exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously.

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing 

standards in this rule that apply at all times. In proposing the 

standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup 

and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in sections 

IV.L and VI.L of this preamble, has proposed alternate standards 

for some sources during those periods.

Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 23 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Instead they are, by definition sudden, infrequent and not 

reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment. The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to 

be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under 

section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less 

stringent than the level “achieved” by the best controlled 

similar source and for existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” 

by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. 

There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the 

best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has 

recognized, the phrase “average emissions limitation achieved by 

the best performing 12 percent of” sources “says nothing about 

how the performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.” Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 

F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for 

variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part 

of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the 

same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 24 of 444 Formatted: Normal

during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 

failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” 

and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such 

events in setting section CAA 112 standards.

Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission 

standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the difficulties associated 

with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and 

duration of various malfunctions that might occur. For these 

reasons, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not 

“reasonably” foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 

F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“The EPA typically has wide 

latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary 

to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision 

to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect 

study.’”) See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 

(D.C. Cir. 1978) (“In the nature of things, no general limit, 

individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate 

all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression 

of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 25 of 444 Formatted: Normal

insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter 

for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 

discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.”). 

In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source 

operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 

99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction 

(as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch 

fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that 

would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-

percent control to zero control until the control device was 

repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 

100 times higher than during normal operations, and the 

emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the 

annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this 

example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to 

standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less 

stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA 

section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to 

malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 26 of 444 Formatted: Normal

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 112 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The 

EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead 

“caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.” 40 

CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).

If the EPA determines in a particular case that enforcement 

action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 

warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal district court will determine 

what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for 

citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in 

an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and 

determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.

In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in 

particular, section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices 

that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 27 of 444 Formatted: Normal

procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully 

recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts 

to comply and can accommodate those situations.

C. What is the history of the proposed rule?

Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA was originally 

required to promulgate standards for the BSCP Manufacturing and 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories by November 2000. 

The agency initially promulgated standards for these categories 

in 2003. See 68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003). Those standards were 

challenged and subsequently vacated by the Court of appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club 

filed suit in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit under CAA section 304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a 

continuing mandatory duty to promulgate standards for these 

categories under CAA section 112 based on the 2000 deadline 

under CAA section 112(c)(5). The EPA challenged that claim in a 

motion to dismiss, arguing that the mandatory duty to act by the 

2000 deadline was satisfied by the 2003 rule and that the 2007 

vacatur of the 2003 rule did not recreate the statutory duty to 

act by the 2000 deadline. Ultimately, the District Court found 

that the vacatur of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty 

to set standards by 2000 and held that Sierra Club’s claims 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 28 of 444 Formatted: Normal

could continue. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.Supp.2d 300 

(D.D.C. 2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then negotiated a consent 

decree to settle the litigation and establish proposal and 

promulgation deadlines for establishing standards for these 

categories.

Following the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule, the EPA began 

efforts to collect additional data to support new standards for 

the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. The EPA conducted an 

initial information collection effort in 2008 to update 

information on the inventory of affected units, hereafter 

referred to as “the 2008 EPA survey.” The EPA conducted a second 

information collection effort in 2010 to obtain additional 

emissions data and information on each facility’s SSM 

procedures, hereafter referred to as “the 2010 EPA survey.” The 

information collected as part of these surveys and not claimed 

as CBI by respondents is available in Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. In addition, the dockets A–

99–30 and OAR-2002-0054 are incorporated by reference for BSCP.

The dockets A-2000-48, OAR-2002-0055 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424 

are incorporated by reference for clay ceramics.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 29 of 444 Formatted: Normal

D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the 

Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing source categories?

The proposed rule protects air quality and promotes the 

public health by reducing emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP and 

clay ceramics kilns. Emissions data collected during development 

of the proposed rule shows that acid gases such as HF, HCl and 

Cl2 represent the predominant HAP emitted by BSCP and clay 

ceramics kilns, accounting for 99.3 percent of the total HAP 

emissions. These kilns also emit lesser amounts of other HAP 

compounds such as HAP metals and dioxins/furans, accounting for 

about 0.7 percent of total HAP emissions. The HAP metals emitted 

include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel and selenium. Exposure to these 

HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can 

be associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These 

adverse health effects could include chronic health disorders 

(e.g., irritation of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, effects 

on the central nervous system and damage to the kidneys) and

acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and congestion, 

alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting and effects on 

the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified two 

of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and chromium VI) and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 30 of 444 Formatted: Normal

four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, 

dioxins/furans and nickel).

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category

This section summarizes the requirements for the BSCP 

Manufacturing source category proposed in today’s action. 

Section IV of this preamble provides our rationale for the 

proposed requirements.

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

Today’s proposed rule for BSCP Manufacturing applies to 

BSCP manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of 

a major source of HAP emissions. The BSCP Manufacturing source 

category includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face 

brick, structural brick, brick pavers and other brick); clay 

pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other 

extruded, dimensional clay products.

B. What are the affected sources?

The affected sources, which are the portions of each source 

in the category for which we are setting standards, are: (1) all 

tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility; and (2) each 

periodic kiln. For purposes of this proposed BSCP manufacturing

rule, tunnel kilns are defined to include any type of continuous 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 31 of 444 Formatted: Normal

kiln used at BSCP manufacturing facilities, including roller 

kilns.

Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas or other fuels, 

including sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of 

a sawdust dryer because sawdust typically is purchased wet and 

needs to be dried before it can be used as fuel. Consequently, 

some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns have two process streams, 

including: (1) a process stream that exhausts directly to the

atmosphere or to an air pollution Control Device (APCD)APCD and 

(2) a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a 

sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being 

emitted to the atmosphere. Both process streams are subject to 

the requirements of today’s proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.

The following BSCP process units are not subject to the 

requirements of today’s proposed rule: (1) kilns that are used 

exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products and 

(2) dryers. See section IV.A of this preamble for information on 

why these sources are not subject to the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule.

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule applies to owners or 

operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the 

requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 32 of 444 Formatted: Normal

source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of 

stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under 

common control that emits or has the potential to emit,

considering controls, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP 

or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

1. Emission Limitations

We are proposing a choice of emission limits for total nonHg HAP metals for all new and existing tunnel kilns. The options 

include a total non-Hg HAP metals limit (pounds per hour 

(lb/hr)) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for non-Hg 

HAP metals (pounds per ton (lb/ton) or grains per dry standard 

cubic foot (gr/dscf) at 7 percent oxygen (O2)). We are also 

proposing a choice of emission limits for Hg (lb/ton, lb/hr or 

micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) at 7 percent 

O2) for new and existing tunnel kilns in two subcategories based 

on kiln size. In this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, a large 

tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a 

design capacity of 10 tons per hour (tph) or greater and a small 

tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a 

design capacity of less than 10 tph. We are also proposing an 

emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all existing and new 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 33 of 444 Formatted: Normal

tunnel kilns at the facility to reduce the acid gases HF, HCl 

and Cl2. The proposed emission limits for Hg and non-Hg HAP 

metals are presented in Table 4 of this preamble.

Table 4—Proposed Total Non-Mercury HAP Metals and Mercury 

Emission Limits for Brick and Structural Clay Products Tunnel 

Kilns

Subcategory Acid gases

Total non-Hg HAP 

metals Hg

Limits for existing sources

Large tunnel kilns

(≥ 10 tph)

-- -- 2.2 E-05 lb/ton OR 

2.7 E-04 lb/hr OR 

29 μg/dscm at 7-

percent O2 for 

each existing 

large tunnel kiln 

at facility

Small tunnel kilns

(< 10 tph)

-- -- 2.0 E-04 lb/ton OR 

0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 

μg/dscm at 7-

percent O2 for 

each existing 

small tunnel kiln 

at facility

All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HClequivalent for 

collection of

all existing 

tunnel kilns at 

facility

0.16 lb/ton PM OR 

0.040 gr/dscf PM 

at 7 percent O2

OR 0.023 lb/hr 

non-Hg HAP metals 

for each existing 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

--

Limits for new sources

Large tunnel kilns

(≥ 10 tph)

-- -- 2.0 E-05 lb/ton OR 

2.4 E-04 lb/hr OR 

13 μg/dscm at 7-

percent O2 for 

each new large 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

Small tunnel kilns

(< 10 tph)

-- -- 2.0 E-04 lb/ton OR 

0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 

μg/dscm at 7-

percent O2 for 

each new small 

tunnel kiln at 

facility
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 34 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Subcategory Acid gases

Total non-Hg HAP 

metals Hg

All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HClequivalent for 

collection of 

all new tunnel 

kilns at 

facility

0.022 lb/ton PM 

OR 0.0066 gr/dscf 

PM at 7 -percent

O2 OR 0.0032

lb/hr non-Hg HAP 

metals for each 

new tunnel kiln 

at facility

--

2. Work Practice Standards

We are proposing work practice standards for BSCP periodic 

kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits. The work practice 

standards would require developing and using a designed firing 

time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the 

periodic kiln; labeling each periodic kiln with the maximum load 

(in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing 

cycle; documenting the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each 

load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load;

developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln 

that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and 

developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, 

including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance 

procedures of the periodic kilns.

We are also proposing work practice standards for BSCP 

tunnel kilns in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits. The work 

practice standards would require maintaining and inspecting the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 35 of 444 Formatted: Normal

burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable);

tuning the specific burner type to optimize combustion; keeping 

records of each burner tune-up; and submitting a report for each 

tune-up conducted.

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section 

II.B of this preamble. Standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown are discussed in this section.

We are proposing the work practice standards described in 

this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP 

tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would 

be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F). In addition, no bricks or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. 

For shutdown, the owner or operator would be required to vent 

the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln 

exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no bricks

or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust 

temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being 

vented through the APCD. When the kiln exhaust is being vented 

through the APCD, the owner or operator would be required to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 36 of 444 Formatted: Normal

comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements 

described in section III.G of this preamble.

We are proposing work practice standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as 

well. For startup, no bricks or other product may be introduced 

to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. 

For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be put into the 

kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F.

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

We are proposing that owners or operators of all affected 

sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial 

performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate 

initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A 

performance test would have to be conducted before renewing the 

facility’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 

5five years following the initial performance test, as well as 

when an operating limit parameter value is being revised.

Under today’s proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, the owner 

or operator would have to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg 

and PM (or non-Hg HAP metals). We are proposing that the owner 

or operator measure HF, HCl and Cl2 using one of the following 

methods:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 37 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 

Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic 

Method,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8;

• EPA Method 26, “Determination of Hydrogen Chloride 

Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8, when no acid particulate (e.g., HF, HCl or Cl2

dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled 

by a wet scrubber) is present;

• EPA Method 320, “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and 

Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR” 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A, provided the test follows the analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless the owner or 

operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking 

procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

Following the performance test, the owner or operator would 

calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using proposed 

Equation 2 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(i). If there are multiple 

kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would sum the HClequivalent for each kiln using proposed Equation 3 in 40 CFR 

63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent and 

compare this value to the proposed limitation.

If the owner or operator chooses to comply with one of the 

two PM emission limits, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator measure PM emissions using one of the following 

methods:

• EPA Method 5, “Determination of Particulate Emissions from 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;

• EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals Emissions From 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, where 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 38 of 444 Formatted: Normal

the test results would report the weight of the PM on the

filter as PM filterable; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

If the owner or operator chooses to comply with the non-Hg 

HAP metals emission limit instead of one of the PM emission 

limits, the owner or operator would measure non-Hg HAP metals 

emissions using EPA Method 29 cited above or any other 

alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator 

under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The owner or 

operator may also use Method 29 or any other approved 

alternative method to measure Hg emissions.

The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance 

requirements that we are proposing. Prior to the initial 

performance test, the owner or operator would need to install 

the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) equipment to 

be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating 

limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator would use 

the CPMS to establish site-specific operating parameter values 

that represent the operating limits.

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the 

APCD is free-flowing at all times during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 39 of 444 Formatted: Normal

fired product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed 

rate varies, the owner or operator would be required to 

determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The 

average of the three test runs establishes the minimum sitespecific feed rate operating limit. If there are different 

average feed rate values during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and 

HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values becomes the

site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present, the 

owner or operator would need to submit analyses and supporting 

documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for BLD systems.

For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or 

DLS) and a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator submit analyses and supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications 

for BLD systems.

For a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), we are proposing that 

the owner or operator continuously measure the pressure drop 

across the DLA during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and 

determine the 3-hour block average pressure drop. The average of 

the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 

pressure drop operating limit. Alternatively, the owner or 

operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 40 of 444 Formatted: Normal

position at least once every 15 minutes during the performance 

test. The owner or operator also would need to maintain an 

adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage 

bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA at all times. In 

addition, the owner or operator would need to establish the

limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) 1 

week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder 

setting for the 1-week period that precedes the performance test 

and during the performance test. Finally, the owner or operator

would need to document the source and grade of the limestone 

used during the performance test.

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during 

the PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance test, the scrubber liquid 

pH and chemical addition rate (if applicable) during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate 

during both the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator

would need to determine and record the average values for the 

three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The average 

of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 

pressure drop, liquid pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addition 

rate operating limits. If different average wet scrubber liquid 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 41 of 444 Formatted: Normal

flow rate values are measured during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

and HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values become 

the site-specific operating limit.

For an activated carbon injection (ACI) system, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator measure the activated 

carbon flow rate during the Hg performance test and determine 

the 3-hour block average flow rate. The average of the three 

test runs establishes the minimum site-specific activated carbon 

flow rate operating limit.

For a source with no APCD installed, we are proposing that 

the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HClequivalent using proposed Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)(1)(i). 

The owner or operator would use the results from the performance 

test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process 

rate. For example, if the design capacity of the kiln is 10 tph 

and the production rate during the performance test was 9 tph, 

then the test results represent 90 percent of the maximum 

potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, 

the owner or operator would need to sum the maximum potential 

HCl-equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the proposed 

health-based emission limitation for acid gases. If the total 

facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 42 of 444 Formatted: Normal

proposed limitation, we are proposing that the owner or operator

determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the 

proposed limitation. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or 

operator would need to determine one or more combinations of 

maximum process rates that would result in a total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the 

proposed limitation. The maximum process rate(s) would become 

the operating limit(s) for process rate.

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

Today’s BSCP manufacturing rule proposes that the owner or 

operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 

limitation that applies. The owner or operator would have to 

follow the requirements in the operation, maintenance and 

monitoring (OM&M) plan and document conformance with the OM&M 

plan. The owner or operator would need to operate a CPMS to 

monitor the operating parameters established during the initial 

performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The 

CPMS would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes, 

including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or 

at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per 

hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or 

operator would have to operate the CPMS at all times when the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 43 of 444 Formatted: Normal

process is operating. The owner or operator would also have to 

conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS (including inspections, 

calibrations and validation checks) and maintain an inventory of 

necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the 

recorded readings, the owner or operator would need to calculate 

and record the 3-hour block average values of each operating 

parameter. To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging 

period, the owner or operator would need to have at least 75 

percent of the recorded readings for that period.

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) 

health-based emission limit by maintaining free-flowing lime in 

the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is 

not flowing freely, according to load cell output, carrier

gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement 

system or other system, the owner or operator would have to

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also have to maintain 

the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or 

above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test and record the feeder setting once each shift.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 44 of 444 Formatted: Normal

The proposed rule would provide the option to use either a 

BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the 

PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit.

For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a 

BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also need to operate 

and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more 

than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction,

the owner or operator would not count any alarm time if 

inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is 

required. If corrective action is required, the owner or 

operator must count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour. If 

corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, 

the owner or operator must count as alarm time the actual amount 

of time taken to initiate corrective action.

For the option of monitoring VE, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in 

accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, “Visual 

Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and 

Smoke Emissions from Flares,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

During the VE observations, the kiln would need to be operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 45 of 444 Formatted: Normal

under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner or 

operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective 

actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 

consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may 

decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to 

weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly 

test, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan and the 

owner or operator would need to resume EPA Method 22 testing of 

that kiln stack on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30 

consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner or operator may 

again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a 

weekly basis.

For a stand-alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission 

limit.

For a DLA, we are proposing that the owner or operator

demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) healthbased emission limit by collecting and recording data 

documenting the DLA pressure drop and reducing the data to 3-

hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to 

maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 46 of 444 Formatted: Normal

hour block period at or above the average pressure drop 

established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. 

Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor 

the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes 

during normal kiln operation. Any period in which the bypass 

damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA 

would trigger corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator also would need to verify that the limestone 

hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA 

contain an adequate amount of limestone by performing a daily 

visual check of the limestone hopper and the storage bin. A 

daily visual check could include one of the following: (1) 

conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a visual 

access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) 

installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed 

to a video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that 

load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need 

for additional limestone. If the hopper or storage bin does not 

contain adequate limestone, the owner or operator would have to 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also would have to record 

the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired 

product basis) to verify that the feeder setting is being 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 47 of 444 Formatted: Normal

maintained at or above the level established during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. The owner or operator also would 

need to use the same grade of limestone from the same source as 

was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and maintain 

records of the source and type of limestone. Finally, the owner 

or operator would need to monitor VE, as described in the 

previous paragraph.

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for 

scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow 

rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the 

minimum values established during the applicable performance 

test. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber pressure 

drop at or above the minimum value established during the 

PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance test would demonstrate 

compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. 

Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid pH and 

chemical (e.g., lime, caustic) addition rate at or above the 

minimum values established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test 

would demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) 

health-based emission limit. Maintaining the 3-hour block 

average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest 

minimum value established during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 48 of 444 Formatted: Normal

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance tests would demonstrate compliance with 

all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is 

in proper working order.

For an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg emission limit by 

continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and 

maintaining it at or above the operating limit established 

during the Hg performance test.

For sources with no APCD, we are proposing that the owner 

or operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. In 

addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the proposed 

health-based emission limitation for acid gases, then we are 

proposing that the owner or operator collect and record data 

documenting the process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to 

3-hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to

maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate 

operating limit(s) that would enable the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent to remain at or below the proposed 

limitation.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 49 of 444 Formatted: Normal

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

All new and existing sources would be required to comply 

with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 

63, subpart A), which are identified in proposed Table 8 of 40 

CFR part 64, subpart JJJJJ. The General Provisions include 

specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and 

reporting.

Each owner or operator would be required to submit a 

notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 

63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed BSCP

manufacturing rule would require the owner or operator to

include in the notification of compliance status report 

certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual 

compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart 

A, would also be required for each semiannual reporting period.

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require records 

to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work 

practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are 

specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 

and are identified in proposed Table 8 of subpart JJJJJ.

Specifically, we are proposing that the owner or operator

keep the following records:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 50 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.

• Records of performance tests.

• Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

• Continuous monitoring data as required in this proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule.

• Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.

• Records of each instance in which the owner or operator did 

not meet each emission limit (i.e., deviations from 

operating limits).

• Records of production rates.

• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing 

procedures.

• Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

• Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting 

conformance.

• Logs of the information required to document compliance 

with the periodic kiln work practice standard.

• Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the 

dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.

• Logs of the information required to document compliance 

with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.

• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action 

taken.

We are also proposing that the owner or operator submit the 

following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.

• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after 

the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.

• Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or 

other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days 

before the performance test and/or other compliance 

demonstration is scheduled.

• Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days 

following completion of a compliance demonstration that 

includes a performance test.

• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days 

following completion of a compliance demonstration that 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 51 of 444 Formatted: Normal

does not include a performance test (i.e., compliance 

demonstrations for the work practice standards).

• Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of the 

most recent burner tune-up conducted to comply with the 

dioxin/furan work practice standard and a report of each 

malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the corrective 

action taken.

• Results of each performance test within 60 days of 

completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided 

software for data collected using supported test methods.

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to 

increase the ease and efficiency of performance test data 

submittal while improving data accessibility. Specifically, the 

EPA is proposing that owners and operators of BSCP manufacturing 

facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test 

reports by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using 

EPA-provided software. The direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer is accomplished through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The Central Data ExchangeCDX is the 

EPA’s portal for submittal of electronic data. The EPA-provided 

software is called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which 

generates electronic reports of performance tests and 

evaluations. The ERT report package will be submitted using the 

CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored in the CDX 

archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA’s public 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 52 of 444 Formatted: Normal

database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access to 

all reports and data in WebFIRE via the WebFIRE Report Search 

and Retrieval link 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSub

mission). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can 

be found on the ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), and CEDRI can be 

accessed through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx).

The proposal to submit performance test data electronically 

to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by the ERT at the time of 

the test. The ERT supports most of the commonly used EPA 

reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 

supported by the ERT is available on the ERT Web site.

We believe that the electronic submittal of reports 

increases the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, 

is in keeping with current trends in data availability and may 

ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. 

Electronic reporting can eliminate paper-based, manual 

processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data 

entry, eliminating redundancies and providing data quickly and 

accurately to the affected sources, air agencies, the EPA and 

the public.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 53 of 444 Formatted: Normal

By making data readily available, electronic reporting 

increases the amount of data that can be used for the 

development of emission factors. The EPA has received feedback 

from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA’s emission 

factors are outdated or not representative of a particular 

industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the 

emission factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we 

also recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of 

equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel 

changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and 

it is important for emission factors to be updated to keep up 

with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emission 

factor development improvements that include procedures to 

incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be 

submitted electronically. 

Emission factors are used in the development of emissions 

inventories, and improved emission factors means that the 

quality of these inventories will be improved more quickly than 

they would under the current paper reporting requirements. 

Emissions inventories are used for tracking emission trends and 

identifying potential sources of emissions for reduction. For 

example, the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) uses 

the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) in its screening 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 54 of 444 Formatted: Normal

level assessments to characterize the nationwide chronic cancer 

risk estimates and noncancer hazards from inhaling air toxics. 

The NATA is used as a screening tool for air agencies to 

prioritize pollutants, emission sources and locations of 

interest for further study to gain a better understanding of 

risks. Therefore, improving the quality of these inventories is 

an on-going goal for the agency and a benefit to the public, air 

agencies and the regulated community. 

Additionally, the EPA, the regulated community and the 

public may benefit from electronic reporting when the EPA 

conducts its CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. 

Because we will already have access to these reports, our 

ability to do comprehensive reviews will be increased and 

achieved within a shorter period of time. Under an electronic 

reporting system, the EPA would have performance test data in 

hand; thus, it is possible that fewer or less substantial 

information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with 

prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews may 

be needed. This may result in a decrease in the need for 

industry staff time to respond to data collection requests. It 

may also allow the EPA to conduct these required reviews more 

quickly, as we will not have to include the ICR collection time 

in the process. While the regulated community may benefit from 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 55 of 444 Formatted: Normal

reduced information collection requestsICRs, the general public 

benefits from the agency’s ability to provideconduct these 

required reviews more quickly.

Electronic reporting could minimize submission of 

unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities 

report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to 

rely on the EPA’s electronic reporting system to view report 

submissions. Where air agencies continue to require a paper copy 

of these reports and will accept a hard copy of the electronic 

report, facilities will have the option to print paper copies of 

the electronic reporting forms to submit to the air agencies, 

thus minimizing the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. 

Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with 

retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by replacing 

those records with electronic records of electronically 

submitted data and reports.

There are benefits of information that is submitted in a 

standardized format. Standardizing the reporting format will 

require the reporting of specific data elements, thereby helping 

to ensure completeness of the data and allowing for accurate 

assessment of data quality. Additionally, imbedded quality 

assurance checks will perform some of the required method 

calculations, reducing errors in test reports. And because the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 56 of 444 Formatted: Normal

system is entirely electronic, it eliminates transcription 

errors in moving data from paper reports to data systems for 

analysis. These quality assurance checks and procedures will 

increase the accuracy of test report data, improve the overall 

quality of test data, and lead to more accurate emission factors 

and higher quality emissions inventories. These features benefit 

all users of the data.

Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and 

automated review of the electronically submitted data. For 

example, because the performance test data would be readilyavailable in a standard electronic format, air agencies would be 

able to review reports and data electronically rather than 

having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. 

Having reports and associated data in electronic format will 

facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, 

as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet 

format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the 

reported data being accessible to them through the EPA’s 

electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or 

need access (as long as they have access to the Internet). The 

ability to access and review information electronically will 

assist air agencies in more quickly determining compliance with 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 57 of 444 Formatted: Normal

emission standards. This benefits both air agencies and the 

general public. 

The general public would also benefit from electronic 

reporting of emissions data because the data would be available 

for viewing sooner and would be easier for the public to access. 

The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data will 

beis easily accessible to the public and will provideprovides a 

user-friendly interface that any stakeholder could access.

In summary, in addition to supporting regulation 

development, control strategy development and other air 

pollution control activities, having an electronic database 

populated with performance test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribalair agencies and the EPA significant time, money 

and effort while also improving the quality of emission 

inventories and air quality regulations.

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural

Clay Products Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

In the BSCP manufacturing industry, the primary sources of 

HAP emissions are kilns, including tunnel kilns and periodic 

kilns. The HAP emitted from BSCP kilns include HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg 

and other non-Hg HAP metals. At one time, dryers were a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 58 of 444 Formatted: Normal

potential source of HF, HCl, Cl2 and non-Hg HAP metals emissions, 

but the design and operation of kilns and dryers has changed 

such that emissions released from the heating of the raw 

materials and the products of combustion no longer pass from the 

kiln into the dryer. In addition, the 2010 EPA survey requested 

that owners/operators of specific dryers test for 

dioxins/furans, and none of the tests found detectable levels of 

dioxins/furans. See the technical memorandum “Determination of 

“Non-Detect” Test Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. Other process units at BSCP 

manufacturing facilities (e.g., raw material processing and 

handling) have not been found to emit measurable quantities of 

HAP. For this reason, the proposed rule covers existing and new 

kilns at major source BSCP manufacturing facilities which meet 

the applicability criteria in the rule.

BSCP kilns that do not meet the applicability criteria 

include kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products. Nearly all of the acid gas emissions 

from the firing of BSCP products are released during the initial 

firing, so kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products emit little to no HF, HCl or Cl2.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 59 of 444 Formatted: Normal

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

For Hg and total non-Hg HAP metals, this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule provides owners and operators of regulated 

sources with a choice between a numerical emission rate limit as 

a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of bricks produced and a 

numerical emission limit in units of concentration. The 

selection of numerical emission rate limits and numerical 

emission limits as the format for this proposed BSCP

manufacturing rule provides flexibility for the regulated 

community by allowing a regulated source to choose any control 

technology or technique to meet the emission limits, rather than 

requiring each unit to use a prescribed control method that may 

not be appropriate in each case. In addition, the selection of 

numerical emission rate limits as mass of pollutant emitted per 

ton of bricks produced ensures that differences in kiln sizes or 

production rates do not affect the level of emissions control 

achieved.

The PM limits are proposed as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals. The same control techniques that would be used to 

control PM will control non-Hg HAP metals. Particulate matter 

was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific 

individual HAP metals because all kilns do not emit the same 

type and amount of HAP metals due to differences in raw 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 60 of 444 Formatted: Normal

materials and fuels used to fire the kilns. However, most kilns 

generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of 

HAP metals. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the 

cost of performance testing needed to comply with numerous

standards for individual non-Hg HAP metals. We have used PM as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals NESHAP for other rules with 

similar processes (e.g., Portland Cement Manufacturing, Lime 

Manufacturing).

Although we continue to believe that PM is a good surrogate 

for non-Hg HAP metals and that complying with a PM emission 

limit rather than non-Hg HAP metals limits will be less costly 

for most kilns, we understand that some owners and operators may 

find that meeting a total non-Hg HAP metals limit is less costly 

than meeting a PM limit. To provide that flexibility, we have 

developed an alternative compliance option of a numerical 

emission rate limit for total non-Hg HAP metals as a mass of 

pollutant emitted per hour. The ability to comply with this 

limit would provide additional flexibility for small tunnel 

kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM 

emissions and would achieve equivalent emission reductions to 

the options to limit PM.

For acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl2), this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule includes a health-based emission limit as a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 61 of 444 Formatted: Normal

mass of HCl-equivalent emitted per hour. Further discussion 

about the development of the health-based standard for the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is provided in section IV.J of 

this preamble.

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule includes work 

practices for dioxins/furans from tunnel kilns. As described in 

more detail in section IV.K.2 of this preamble, 83 percent of 

the dioxin/furan data collected during the information 

collectionICR process were below the detection level and it is 

not practicable due to technological and economic limitations to 

apply measurement methodology to test for compliance with a 

numerical limit.

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes work 

practices for periodic kilns. As described in more detail in 

section IV.K.1 of this preamble, technological and economic 

limitations make it impracticable to measure compliance with 

numerical emission limits for BSCP periodic kilns.

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate 

emission standards for either categories or subcategories of 

sources. Through subcategorization, we are able to define 

subsets of similar emission sources within a source category if 

differences in emissions characteristics, processes or
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 62 of 444 Formatted: Normal

opportunities for pollution prevention exist within the source 

category. Upon initial consideration of the available 

information on the BSCP manufacturing industry, we determined 

that separate subcategories for periodic kilns and tunnel kilns 

were warranted for several reasons. First, periodic kilns are 

smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an hourly 

basis, as well as accounting for only about 4 percent of total

BSCP industry production). Second, periodic kilns are operated 

in batch cycles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously.

Third, periodic kilns are typically operated at higher 

temperatures than tunnel kilns and products are typically heated 

in the kiln for longer periods than products fired in tunnel 

kilns, resulting in higher energy requirements. As noted in 

section IV.K.1 of this preamble, we have determined that it is 

technologically and economically infeasible to test periodic 

kilns, thereby ruling out a quantitative analysis of how these 

differences impact emissions. However, a qualitative comparison 

can be made, in that smaller kilns operated periodically (i.e., 

periodic kilns) would be expected to have lower emissions over 

time compared to the larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns.

We then examined the potential for additional subcategories 

for tunnel kilns, including subcategorization based on kiln fuel 

and kiln size. Based on the available emissions test data, we 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 63 of 444 Formatted: Normal

could not discern differences in emissions based on fuel type. 

For that reason, we have not subcategorized by fuel type. We 

request comment, including additional data if appropriate, on 

whether we should subcategorize by fuel type. In particular, we 

request comment on whether we should create a subcategory for 

kilns fired with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

We then considered subcategorization of tunnel kilns based 

on kiln size. There are several differences between the design, 

operation and efficiency of larger kilns and smaller kilns. In 

particular, many small kilns are the older, less efficient kilns 

in the industry and newer kilns can be constructed to be larger 

and more efficient due to advances in design. Smaller, older 

kilns were constructed with large amounts of heavy refractory 

brick and are narrow and tall in shape, with high arched 

ceilings. Larger, newer kilns can be constructed with more 

efficient refractories and can include features such as fiber 

linings and insulating brick, resulting in a wider kiln with 

lower ceilings. In addition, the burners in a small kiln are 

generally less efficient and are located near the bottom of the 

kiln, where some of the heat is absorbed by the cars that move 

the bricks through the kiln rather than by the bricks 

themselves. In a large kiln, the burners are more efficient and 

are often located at the top of the kiln, where they can fire 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 64 of 444 Formatted: Normal

downward to the product. Combined with the kiln size and shape 

differences, the difference in burner efficiency and location 

results in a more even temperature distribution throughout the 

kiln and product in a large kiln than in a small kiln.

To assess whether these design and operation differences 

have an effect on emissions and provide support for defining 

size subcategories in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, we 

conducted a set of statistical analyses on the emissions 

dataset. In the vacated rule, “small kilns” were defined as 

kilns with a design capacity less than 10 tph and “large kilns” 

were defined as kilns with a design capacity of 10 tph or 

greater. The main goal of the statistical analyses was to 

determine if these definitions are supported by our current 

dataset. Because we have Cl2, Hg and non-Hg HAP metals data for 

only about 10 percent of the kilns in the industry, we conducted 

the series analyses based on the HF, HCl and PM datasets, which 

are available for a much larger percentage of the kilns in the 

industry, providing more representative kiln datasets for the 

analyses.

We found that the median of the emissions data from kilns 

in the large kiln dataset was statistically different than the 

median of the emissions data from kilns in the small kiln 

dataset for all three pollutants. We also usedAlso, based on a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 65 of 444 Formatted: Normal

logistic model to test the, we found high association between 

emissions and the hypothesized design capacity classification

and the association was high. Finally, we conducted a cluster 

analysis and considered all three pollutants together to 

investigate whether the combined dataset supported changing the 

definitions of small and large kilns. This cluster analysis 

supported the subcategory definitions from the vacated rule. 

(For more information on the statistical analyses, see “Analysis 

of Potential Subcategories for BSCP Tunnel Kilns” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.)

Based on the above information and analyses, we determined 

that differences in design and emissions exist between large (10 

tph or greater) and small (less than 10 tph) kilns. Therefore, 

we are proposing to exercise our discretion to subcategorize 

based on kiln size for these kilns’ emissions of Hg. As 

discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, we are not proposing 

to exercise our discretion to subcategorize for other 

pollutants.

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

All standards established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) 

must reflect MACT, the maximum degree of reduction in emissions 

of air pollutants that the Administrator, taking into 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 66 of 444 Formatted: Normal

consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reductions 

and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements, determined is achievable for each category.

For existing sources, MACT cannot be less stringent than 

the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 

12 percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories 

with 30 or more sources or the best performing 5five sources for 

subcategories with less than 30 sources. This requirement 

constitutes the MACT floor for existing sources. The CAA 

specifies that MACT for new sources shall not be less stringent 

than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 

best controlled similar source. This minimum level of stringency 

is the MACT floor for new units.

The EPA may not consider costs or other impacts in 

determining the MACT floor. However, the EPA must consider cost, 

nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements in connection with any standards that are more 

stringent than the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor controls).

The remainder of this section describes the development of 

the pool of data used to calculate the MACT floors for Hg and PM

(as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals). As noted in section IV.J

of this preamble, health-based emissions standards are being 

proposed for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2 under the provisions 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 67 of 444 Formatted: Normal

of CAA section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not prepared 

a MACT floor analysis for these pollutants.

1. Mercury

In our MACT floor analysis for Hg, we separated the sources 

into large kiln and small kiln subcategories, as described in 

section IV.C of this preamble. For each subcategory, we ranked 

the sources based on the data in terms of lb/ton (as described 

in section IV.E of this preamble) and identified the best 

performing 12 percent of sources. Once we identified the best 

performing kilns, we then calculated the MACT floor in units of 

lb/ton for each subcategory as described in section IV.E of this 

preamble. We also calculated the MACT floor in lb/hr and 

concentration units (μg/dscm at 7-percent O2) for each 

subcategory, based on the concentration emissions data for the 

same top 12 percent (best performing) sources as the lb/ton 

floor. This is further discussed in section IV.E of this 

preamble and in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

2. Total Non-Hg HAP Metals

We developed MACT floors for PM as a surrogate for total 

non-Hg HAP metals. The available PM data show that kilns 

controlled with a FF-based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) as a group 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 68 of 444 Formatted: Normal

are better performers than kilns without FF-based controls. When 

we divided the kilns into two groups, one group consisting of 

kilns with a FF-based APCD and the other group consisting of 

uncontrolled kilns and kilns with a different type of APCD, we 

found that the test data for kilns with FF-based APCD showed 

they were consistently good performers, while the test data for 

kilns without a FF-based APCD varied widely. The worst 

performing kiln with a FF-based APCD performs better than the 

average kiln in the group without a FF-based APCD. The best

performing 75 percent of the kilns with a FF-based APCD showed 

better performance than 80 percent of the kilns without a FFbased APCD. We also conducted a t-test on the averages of the 

two groups and we found that the average of the test data for 

kilns with FF-based APCD was statistically different from the 

average of the test data for kilns without a FF-based APCD (with 

99 -percent confidence). See the technical memorandum “Analysis 

of Potential Subcategories in the BSCP Source Category” in

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

One consequence of the wide variability in emissions from 

kilns without a FF-based APCD is that there are a few 

uncontrolled kilns and kilns controlled with DLA with lower 

lb/ton emissions than some of the kilns controlled with a FFbased APCD. We understand that that the emissions from kilns 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 69 of 444 Formatted: Normal

with FF-based APCD will be consistently low over time, based on 

the design of these APCD and years of experience with these 

devices. On the other hand, we do not have multiple tests over 

time that would enable us to say the same for kilns that have a 

different type of APCD (e.g., DLA) or are uncontrolled. Thus, we 

are requesting information and analysis as to whether the data 

showing low emissions from some kilns without a FF-based APCD 

are reliable.1

As of January 1, 2014, there were 225 operating BSCP tunnel 

kilns in the industry (including kilns at major sources and 

synthetic area sources); the top 12 percent of the kilns in the 

industry would be represented by the 27 best performing kilns. 

Therefore, we ranked the kilns with a FF-based APCD in terms of 

lb/ton (as described in section IV.E of this preamble) and 

identified the 27 best performing sources from that group. Once 

we identified the best performing kilns, we then calculated the 

MACT floor in units of lb/ton as described in section IV.E of 

this preamble. We also calculated the MACT floor in 

concentration units (gr/dscf at 7 -percent O2), based on the 

 1 Further, as discussed in section IV.P.1 of this preamble, the EPA is also 

considering setting emission limits for PM and total non-Hg HAP metals based 

on the top 12 percent of the data available in each of the kiln size 

subcategories. The reliability of the data showing low emissions from some 

kilns without a FF-based APCD is a key factor in the EPA’s determination of 

which approach is appropriate.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 70 of 444 Formatted: Normal

concentration emissions data for the same top 12 percent (best

performing) sources as the lb/ton floor. As another alternative, 

we calculated an equivalent lb/hr total non-Hg HAP metals limit 

using the average non-Hg HAP metals content of the PM emissions 

and the average process rates of the best performing kilns. This 

limit would provide additional compliance flexibility for small 

tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the 

PM emissions. The alternatives are further discussed in section 

IV.E of this preamble and in the technical memorandum “Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick 

and Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291.

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

The EPA must consider available emissions information to 

determine the MACT floors. The EPA must exercise its judgment, 

based on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available 

data, to determine the level of emissions control that has been 

achieved by the best performing sources under variable 

conditions. The U.S.United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit has recognized that the EPA may 

consider variability in estimating the degree of emission 

reduction achieved by best performing sources and in setting 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 71 of 444 Formatted: Normal

MACT floors. See Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 

1232, 1241–42 (DC Cir. 2004) (holding EPA may consider emission 

variability in estimating performance achieved by best

performing sources and may set the floor at level that best

performing source can expect to meet “every day and under all 

operating conditions”).

As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, the EPA 

established the MACT floors for PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg 

HAP metals) for BSCP kilns based on sources representing 12 

percent of the number of sources in the category. For Hg emitted 

from each of the kiln subcategories, the EPA established the 

MACT floors based on sources representing 12 percent of the 

sources for which we had emissions information. The MACT floor 

limitations for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP 

metals) were calculated based on the performance of the best

performing sources in each of the subcategories. The best

performing sources were determined by ranking each source’s 

average emission value from lowest to highest. 

Once the best performing sources in the MACT floor pools 

were identified, the MACT floors were calculated using an Upper 

Prediction Limit (UPL). The UPL takes into consideration the 

average performance of the units in the MACT floor pool and the 

variability of the test runs during the testing conditions. For 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 72 of 444 Formatted: Normal

more information regarding the general use of the UPL and why it 

is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see the memorandum 

“Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors”

in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

The UPL represents the value which one can expect the mean 

of a specified number of future observations (e.g., 3-run 

average) to fall below for the specified level of confidence, 

based upon the results of an independent sample from the same 

population. A prediction interval for a future observation or an 

average of future observations, is an interval that will, with a 

specified degree of confidence, contain the next (or the average 

of some other pre-specified number of) randomly selected 

observation(s) from a population. Given this definition, the UPL 

represents the value which we can expect the mean of three 

future observations (3-run average) to fall below, based upon 

the results of an independent sample from the same population. 

In other words, if we were to randomly select a future test 

condition from any of these sources (i.e., average of 3three

runs), we can be 99 percent confident that the reported level 

will fall at or below the UPL value.

There are different UPL equations depending on the 

distribution of the data (e.g., normal, lognormal, 

skewed/unknown). We first determined the distribution of each 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 73 of 444 Formatted: Normal

MACT floor pool’s data to determine the appropriate UPL equation 

using statistical tests of the kurtosis (K), standard error of 

kurtosis (SEK), skewness (S) and standard error of skewness

(SES). The skewness statistic (S) characterizes the degree of 

asymmetry of a given dataset. According to the skewness 

hypothesis test, if S is less than 2two times the SES, the data 

distribution can be considered to be normal. The kurtosis 

statistic (K) characterizes the degree of peakedness or flatness 

of a given data distribution in comparison to a normal 

distribution. According to the kurtosis hypothesis test, if K is 

less than 2two times the SEK, the data distribution can be 

considered to be normal. The skewness and kurtosis hypothesis 

tests were applied to both the reported test values and the logtransformed values of the reported test values to determine the 

distribution of each dataset. A UPL was then calculated for each 

MACT floor pool with the UPL equation corresponding to the 

dataset’s distribution (e.g., normal, lognormal, 

skewed/unknown).

A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, 

including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of 

kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 74 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

Test method measurement imprecision can also be a component 

of data variability. Of particular concern are those data that 

are reported near or below a test method’s pollutant detection 

capability. There is a concern that a floor emissions limit 

calculated using values at or near the method detection limit

may not account adequately for data measurement variability. The 

expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value 

occurring at or near the detection limit is about 40 to 50 

percent. Relative pollutant measurement imprecision decreases to 

a consistent 10 to 15 percent for values measured at a level 

about 3 times the method detection limit.2

One approach that we believe could be applied to account 

for measurement variability would require defining a detection 

limit that is representative of the data used in establishing 

the floor emissions limitations and also minimizes the influence 

of an outlier test-specific method detection limit value. The 

EPA has developed a list of representative detection levels 

(RDL) developed from available pollutant specific method 

 2 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method Accuracy and 

Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements, 

CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 75 of 444 Formatted: Normal

detection levels.3 These RDL values are then multiplied by 3three

to decrease measurement imprecision to around 10 to 15 percent 

(as noted in the previous paragraph), resulting in values 

referred to as “3xRDL” values.

The appropriate 3xRDL value was compared to the calculated 

UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory. If the 3xRDL value 

was less than the calculated UPL value, we concluded that 

measurement variability is adequately addressed and we used the 

calculated UPL value as the MACT floor emissions limit. If, on 

the other hand, the 3xRDL value was greater than the calculated 

UPL value, we concluded that the calculated UPL value does not 

account entirely for measurement variability. We then used the 

3xRDL value in place of the calculated UPL value to ensure that 

measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT 

floor emissions limit. This check was part of the variability 

analysis for all existing MACT floors that had below detection 

limit (BDL) or detection level limited (DLL) run data present in 

the best performing datasets (see the technical memorandum

“Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

 3 “Data and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing 

various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits.”

Memorandum from Peter Westlin, SPPD, MPG and Raymond Merrill, AQAD, MTG, to 

SPPD management and MACT rule writers. December 13, 2011.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 76 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Brick and Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0291).

As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in 

setting floors, not only because variability is an element of 

performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best 

performance over time. For example, we know that the HAP 

emission data from the best performing units are, for the most 

part, short-term averages and that the actual HAP emissions from 

those sources will vary over time. If we do not account for this 

variability, we would expect that even the units that perform 

better than the floor on average could potentially exceed the 

floor emission levels a part of the time, which would mean that 

variability was not properly taken into account. This 

variability may include the day-to-day variability in the total 

HAP input to each unit; variability of the sampling and analysis 

methods; and variability resulting from site-to-site differences 

for the best performing units. The EPA’s consideration of 

variability accounted for that variability exhibited by the data 

representing multiple units and multiple data values for a given 

unit (where available). We calculated the MACT floor based on 

the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described earlier from the 

average performance of the best performing units and the 

variability of the best performing units.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 77 of 444 Formatted: Normal

We believe this approach reasonably ensures that the 

emission limits selected as the MACT floors adequately represent 

the level of emissions actually achieved by the average of the 

units in the top 12 percent, considering operational variability 

of those units. Both the analysis of the measured emissions from 

units representative of the top 12 percent and the variability 

analysis are reasonably designed to provide a meaningful 

estimate of the average performance or central tendency, of the 

best performing 12 percent of units in a given subcategory. A 

detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

Table 5 of this preamble presents the average emission 

level of the best performing sources and the existing source 

MACT floor. For this source category, all the existing source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL.

Table 5—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Existing Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter Hgb PMb,c

Large tunnel 

kilns (≥ 10 

tph)

Avg. of best performing 

sources

1.6 E-05 lb/ton

1.7 E-04 lb/hr

14 μg/dscm 

--

MACT floor 2.2 E-05 lb/ton

2.7 E-04 lb/hr

29 μg/dscm

--

Small tunnel Avg. of best performing 1.8 E-04 lb/ton --
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 78 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Subcategory Parameter Hgb PMb,c

kilns (< 10 

tph)

sources 0.0010 lb/hr

62 μg/dscm 

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 lb/ton

0.0011 lb/hr

70 μg/dscm 

--

All kilns Avg. of best performing 

sources

-- 0.041 lb/ton

0.011 gr/dscf 

MACT floor -- 0.16 lb/ton

0.040 gr/dscf 

a For this source category, all the existing source MACT floors are based on 

the UPL.

b Concentration units are at 7 -percent O2. c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals.

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

The approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for 

new sources is somewhat different from the approach that we used 

to calculate the MACT floors for existing sources because the 

statutory standard is different. Although the MACT floors for 

existing units are intended to reflect the performance achieved 

by the average of the best performing 12 percent of sources, the 

MACT floors for new units are meant to reflect the emission 

control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled 

similar source. Thus, for existing units, we are concerned about 

estimating the central tendency of a set of multiple units, 

whereas for new units, we are concerned about estimating the 

level of control that is representative of that achieved by a 

single best performing source. As with the analysis for existing 

sources, the new source analysis must account for variability.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 79 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Similar to the MACT floor process used for existing units, 

the approach we used for determining the MACT floor for new 

units was based on available emissions test data. Specifically, 

we calculated the new source MACT floor for a subcategory of 

sources by ranking each unit’s average emission value within the 

subcategory from lowest to highest to identify the best 

performing similar source. The new source MACT floor limits for 

Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) were 

calculated based on the performance of the best performing

source for each pollutant in each of the subcategories.

The MACT floor limits for new sources were calculated using 

the same UPL formula as was used for existing sources, except 

the data used were from the best performing source rather than 

the best performing 12 percent of sources. As previously 

discussed, we accounted for variability of the best performing

source in setting floors, not only because variability is an 

element of performance, but because it is reasonable to assess 

best performance over time. We calculated the new source MACT 

floor based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described 

earlier from the average performance of the best performing

similar source, Student’s t-factor and the total variability of 

the best performing source.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 80 of 444 Formatted: Normal

This approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit 

selected as the MACT floor for new sources adequately represents 

the average level of control achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source, considering ordinary operational 

variability. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology 

is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

Table 6 of this preamble presents, for each subcategory and 

pollutant, the average emission level of the best performing

similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.

Table 6—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products New Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter Hgb PMb,c

Large tunnel 

kilns (≥ 10 

tph)

Avg. of top performer 1.5 E-05 lb/ton

1.8 E-04 lb/hr

10 μg/dscm 

--

MACT floor 2.0 E-05 lb/ton

2.4 E-04 lb/hr

13 μg/dscm 

--

Small tunnel 

kilns (< 10 

tph)

Avg. of top performer 1.8 E-04 lb/ton

0.0010 lb/hr

62 μg/dscm

--

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 lb/ton

0.0011 lb/hr

70 μg/dscm 

--

All kilns Avg. of top performer -- 0.0060 lb/ton

0.0020 gr/dscf 

MACT floor -- 0.022 lb/tond

0.0066 gr/dscfd

a The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 81 of 444 Formatted: Normal

b Concentration units are at 7 percent O2. c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on the 3xRDL value.

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

In a recent D.C. CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit decision in National 

Association of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, which involved 

challenges to EPA’s MACT standards for sewage sludge 

incinerators, questions were raised regarding the application of 

the UPL to limited datasets. We have since addressed these 

questions, as explained in detail in the memorandum titled,

“Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited 

Datasets” (hereafter referred to as the “Limited Dataset Memo”), 

which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. 

A limited dataset is defined as having less than seven data 

points. In calculating MACT floor limits based on limited 

datasets, we considered additional factors as described in the

Limited Dataset Memo. We seek comments on the approach described 

in the Limited Dataset Memo and whether there are other 

approaches we should consider for such datasets. We also seek 

comments on the application of this approach for the derivation 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 82 of 444 Formatted: Normal

of MACT limits based on limited datasets in this proposal, which 

are described in the Limited Dataset Memo.

For the BSCP manufacturing source category, we have limited 

datasets for the following pollutants and subcategories: Hg for 

existing and new small tunnel kilns; PM for new tunnel kilns; 

and Hg for new large tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we 

performed the steps outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See 

the Limited Dataset Memo for more information.

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing 

sources?

As discussed in sections II.A and IV.D of this preamble, 

the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements 

that are more stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-thefloor options). When considering beyond-the-floor options, the 

EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of HAP, but must take into account the associated 

costs, energy and non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts when doing so.

Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for each 

subcategory, we considered regulatory options more stringent 

than the MACT floor level of control (e.g., the performance of 

technologies that could result in lower emissions) for the 

different subcategories. We considered requiring all existing 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 83 of 444 Formatted: Normal

sources to meet the new source MACT floors for Hg and PM (as a 

surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) developed as described in 

section IV.F of this preamble. We analyzed the beyond-the-floor 

options for Hg and total non-Hg HAP metals separately for 

existing sources. Our analyses are documented in the technical

memorandum, “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts 

for the BSCP NESHAP”,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

The beyond-the-floor option for total non-Hg HAP metals is 

estimated to achieve additional non-Hg HAP metals reductions of 

2.86 tpy and cost an additional $22.8 million per year (2011 

dollars), for a cost effectiveness of $7,960,000 per ton of 

total additional non-Hg HAP metals removed. The beyond-the-floor 

option for Hg is estimated to achieve additional Hg reductions 

of 0.0625 tpy (125 pounds per year) and cost an additional $9.25

million per year (2011 dollars), for a cost effectiveness of 

$148,000,000 per ton of total additional Hg removed ($74,000 per 

pound of additional Hg removed). We have concluded that the 

incremental costs of additional control beyond the MACT floor 

emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of 

emission reduction achieved for either the Hg or total non-Hg 

HAP metals beyond-the-floor options. Therefore, we are not 

proposing beyond-the-floor limits for Hg or total non-Hg HAP 

metals.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 84 of 444 Formatted: Normal

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

The MACT floor level of control for new tunnel kilns for 

each pollutant was based on the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source 

within each of the subcategories. A new kiln would likely need 

both a FF and ACI system for control of non-Hg HAP metals and Hg 

to meet the new source MACT floors. When we establish a beyondthe-floor standard, we typically identify control techniques 

that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit more 

stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were identified 

that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the new source 

floors for the subcategories. Therefore, the EPA is not 

proposing a beyond-the-floor limit for new sources in this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

In developing the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, we 

considered whether it was appropriate to establish health-based 

emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid 

gases HF, HCl and Cl2. As a general matter, CAA section 112(d)

requires MACT standards at least as stringent as the MACT floor 

to be set for all HAP emitted from major sources. However, CAA 

section 112(d)(4) provides that for HAP with established health 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 85 of 444 Formatted: Normal

thresholds, the EPA has the discretionary authority to consider 

such health thresholds when establishing emission standards 

under CAA section 112(d). This provision is intended to allow 

the EPA to establish emission standards other than technologybased MACT standards, in cases where an alternative emission 

standard will still ensure that the health threshold will not be 

exceeded, with an ample margin of safety. This section discusses

the prerequisite for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard, 

the factors the EPA considered in exercising its discretion to 

set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard and how the EPA set the 

level of the proposed standard.

1. What are the prerequisites for setting a CAA section

112(d)(4) standard?

The prerequisites for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) 

standard are that the pollutant must have a health threshold and 

not be carcinogenic.4 Whether a pollutant has a health threshold 

is based on certain factors, including evidence and 

classification of carcinogenic risk and evidence of 

noncarcinogenic effects:5

 4 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54985 (col. 2-3) 

(September 9, 2010) (“In order to exercise this discretion [to set health 

threshold standards under 112(d)(4)], EPA must first conclude that the HAP at 

issue has an established health threshold...”). 5 See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed 

Rule, 63 FR 18754, 18766/1-18767/1 (April 15, 1998).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 86 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• The EPA “presumptively concludes” that known, probable and 

possible carcinogens (Group A, B and C pollutants) “should 

not be categorized as threshold pollutants.”

• Pollutants for which there is not enough evidence to make a 

conclusion on carcinogenicity (Group D pollutants) will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

• Pollutants classified as non-carcinogens (Group E 

pollutants) are “presumptively considered” to be threshold 

pollutants.6

Health threshold standards may not be set for pollutants that 

are carcinogenic.7

The EPA has exercised its discretionary authority under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) in a handful of prior actions setting 

emissions standards for other major source categories, including 

the emissions standards issued in 2004 for commercial and 

industrial boilers and process heaters, which were vacated on 

other grounds by the U.S.United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. In the proposals for both the Pulp 

and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP, 63 FR at 

18765 (April 15, 1998) and Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, 67 FR at 

78054 (December 20, 2002), the EPA invoked CAA section 112(d)(4) 

 6 The current weight-of-evidence under the 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen 

Risk Assessments, which replaced the 1986 cancer guidelines, recommends the 

following cancer hazard descriptors: “Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Likely to Be 

Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential,” 

“Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential,” and “Not Likely to 

Be Carcinogenic to Humans” (which are considered equivalent to the 1986 

groups A,B,C,D and E respectively).

7 See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed 

Rule, 63 FR 18754, 18765/3 (“The EPA presumptively applies section 112(d)(4) 

only to HAP’s that are not carcinogens because Congress clearly intended that 

carcinogens be considered nonthreshold pollutants”).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 87 of 444 Formatted: Normal

for HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility. In 

those proposed actions, the EPA concluded that HCl had an 

established health threshold (in those cases it was interpreted 

as the reference concentration for chronic effects or RfC) and 

was not classified as a human carcinogen. In light of the 

absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk, the availability of 

information on noncarcinogenic effects and the limited potential 

health risk associated with the discrete units being regulated, 

the EPA concluded that it was within the EPA’s discretion to set 

an emissions standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl under 

the circumstances of those actions.

In more recent actions, the EPA noted that HCl was a 

threshold pollutant, but decided not to propose a health-based 

emission standard for HCl emissions under CAA section 112(d)(4) 

for Portland Cement facilities (74 FR at 21154; May 6, 2009) or 

for Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR at 32032; June 4, 2010)

for other reasons. To date, the EPA has not implemented a NESHAP 

that applied the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(4) to HF or 

Cl2.8

Since any emission standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) 

must consider the established health threshold level, with an 

 8 The EPA has not classified HF or Cl2 gas with respect to carcinogenicity. 

However, at this time the agency is not aware of any data that would suggest 

either of these HAP are carcinogens.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 88 of 444 Formatted: Normal

ample margin of safety, in this proposed BSCP manufacturing

rulemaking the EPA has considered the adverse health effects of 

the HAP acid gases, HCl, Cl2 and HF. The standard approach for 

determining potential hazards of a pollutant has been to use a 

health benchmark below which effects are not expected to occur. 

Described below are the health effects and benchmarks for HCl, 

Cl2 and HF and the rationale for their designation as threshold 

pollutants. It is important to note that if exposure levels as 

proposed by the emissions limits in this proposed BSCP

manufacturing rulemaking are achieved, the adverse health 

effects described below will not be of concern for emissions 

from these source categories.

Hydrogen chloride is corrosive to the eyes, skin and mucous 

membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose and

respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary 

edema in humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been 

reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis and dermatitis in 

workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause 

dental discoloration and erosion. No information is available on 

the reproductive or developmental effects of HCl in humans. In 

rats exposed to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have 

been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and 

decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. The EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 89 of 444 Formatted: Normal

conducted a toxicity assessment of chronic inhalation exposure 

to HCl and has established an RfC of 20 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3).9 An RfC is defined as an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups10) that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The 

EPA RfC for HCl was based on respiratory toxicity observed in 

animals. An uncertainty factor of 300 was applied to the lowest 

adverse effect level noted in animals. This assessment did not 

take into account effects associated with acute exposure.11 The 

EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity.

With respect to the potential health effects of HCl, we 

know the following:

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the RfC is 

not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects.

• Little research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity. 

The one occupational study of which we are aware found no 

evidence of carcinogenicity.

 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS). Hydrogen chloride (CASRN 7647-01-0). 1995. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm. Accessed on April 11, 2014. 10 “Sensitive subgroups” may refer to particular life stages, such as children 

or the elderly or to those with particular medical conditions, such as 

asthmatics.

11 California EPA considered acute toxicity and established a 1-hour reference 

exposure level (REL) of 2.1 mg/m3

. An REL is the concentration level at or 

below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of safety.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 90 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• There is a significant body of scientific literature 

addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HCl.12

Based on this information, the agency believes it is 

reasonable to classify HCl as a Group D pollutant.13 Based on the 

negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s knowledge of how 

HCl reacts in the body and its likely mechanism of action, as 

discussed above, the agency considers HCl to be a threshold 

pollutant.

The effects of acute exposure to humans and animals to Cl2

have been well characterized. Similar to HCl, Cl2 is a well-known 

sensory irritant (capable of eliciting sensory irritation) and 

the most sensitive target for toxicity in humans and animals is 

the respiratory system. Acute exposures to low levels of Cl2

(approximately 3 to 40 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)) have 

been shown to cause nose, eyes and throat irritation in humans. 

Acute exposure to high levels (above 40 mg/m3

) of Cl2 in humans 

can result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis and

pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term) exposure to Cl2 gas in 

workers has resulted in respiratory effects including eye and 

throat irritation and airflow obstruction. Animal studies have 

 12 See California Office of Health Hazard Assessment. Acute Toxicity Summary 

for Hydrogen Chloride. Available at:

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD2_final.pdf#page=112, 

EPA, 2008. 13 See Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, Review 

Draft; EPA–600/8–87/041A, August 1994.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 91 of 444 Formatted: Normal

reported decreased body weight gain, eye and nose irritation, 

non-neoplastic nasal lesions and respiratory epithelial 

hyperplasia from chronic inhalation exposure to Cl2. There is no 

evidence that Cl2 causes reproductive or developmental effects in 

animals or humans. A few studies of workers in the chemical 

industry did not find any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic. The 

EPA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and

the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have not 

classified Cl2 gas as to its carcinogenicity.

The human health value for Cl2 is an Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) 

of 0.00015 μg/m3

.14 The MRL is defined as an estimate of daily 

human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of adverse effects (other than cancer) over a 

specified duration of exposure.15 The MRL was based on 

respiratory toxicity (nasal lesions) observed in a chronic 

inhalation exposure (1 year) in monkeys. An uncertainty factor 

of 30 was applied to the MRL to account for uncertainties in 

extrapolating results from animal to humans and to account for 

 14 Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36. 15 Inhalation MRLs are used in noncancer assessments when IRIS RfCs are not 

available because their concept, definition and derivation are 

philosophically consistent (though not identical) with the basis for EPA’s 

RfCs (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 92 of 444 Formatted: Normal

human variability. Since the effects of acute exposure of humans 

and animals to Cl2 have been well characterized, the ATSDR 

toxicity profile for Cl2 also included acute MRL.

With respect to the potential health effects of Cl2, we know 

the following:

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the MRL is 

not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects.

• The acute effects of Cl2 have been well characterized in 

humans.

• Studies of workers in the chemical industry did not find 

any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic.

Based on the negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s 

knowledge of how Cl2 reacts in the body and its likely mechanism 

of action, as discussed above, the agency presumptively 

considers Cl2 to be a threshold pollutant.

There is a significant body of scientific literature 

addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HF.16 Hydrogen 

fluoride is a respiratory tract irritant capable of causing 

severe tissue damage in the respiratory system. Acute (shortterm) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe 

respiratory effects in humans, including severe irritation and 

pulmonary edema. Severe ocular irritation and dermal burns may 

occur following eye or skin exposure in humans. Because the 

 16 California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen 

Fluoride. 2003. Available at

http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 93 of 444 Formatted: Normal

toxic effects of HF are, to a large extent, based on the 

fluoride ion rather than the hydrogen ion, it is noteworthy to 

mention that the major health effect of chronic inhalation 

exposure to high levels of fluoride is skeletal fluorosis. In 

skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates in the bone 

progressively over many years and can cause a variety of 

symptoms including stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe 

cases, the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify,

resulting in muscle impairment and pain. Chronic inhalation 

exposure to HF (with particulate fluorides) in the aluminum 

industry has been associated with increased risk of asthma. 

Chronic oral exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial 

effect of dental cavity prevention and may also be useful for 

the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of 

fluoride may cause dental and bone fluorosis. Although the 

existing toxicological database on fluoride does not provide 

strong evidence for the consideration of fluoride as an 

essential element, several organizations consider fluoride an 

important dietary element for humans. The Institute of Medicine 

(IOM) has derived adequate intake values ranging from 0.01 to 4 

milligrams per day to reduce the occurrence of dental caries.17

 17 IOM. 1997. Dietary reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, 

vitamin Dand fluoride. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. National 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 94 of 444 Formatted: Normal

The World Health Organization (WHO) considers fluoride to be 

“essential” because it considered “resistance to dental caries 

to be a physiologically important function.”18 With regard to HF 

carcinogenic potential, the ATSDR Public Health Statement 

document states that “carcinogenicity via inhalation of fluoride 

is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting 

in the existing literature.” The EPA has not classified HF for 

carcinogenicity.

The chronic inhalation noncancer human health value the EPA 

uses for HF is the Reference Exposure Level (REL)REL of 0.014 

mg/m3 derived by California EPA (CalEPA).19 CalEPA defines the 

REL as a concentration level at (or below) which no adverse 

health effects are anticipated for specific exposure durations, 

a concept that is substantially similar to EPA's non-cancer 

dose-response assessment perspective and we, therefore, use it 

as an alternate value in the absence of an Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) RfC.20 REL are designed to protect the 

 Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press. 

www4.nationalacademies.org/iom/iomhome.nsf. 18 WHO. 2002. Fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 

Environmental Health Criteria Number 227. 

http://www.inchem.org/pages/ehc.html. 19 California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen 

Fluoride. 2003. Available at 

http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270. 20 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has 

developed dose-response assessments for many substances, based both on 

carcinogenicity and health effects other than cancer. The process for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 95 of 444 Formatted: Normal

most sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of 

margins of safety. The REL was based on minimal changes in bone 

density (skeletal fluorosis) in the workplace by Derryberry et 

al.21 CalEPA states that major strengths of the key study on 

which the chronic REL is based is the observation of health 

effects in a large group of workers exposed over many years and

the identification of no observable adverse effect level 

(NOAEL). The primary uncertainty in the study is the lack of 

comprehensive health effects examination. Another source of 

concern is the potential for greater susceptibility of children 

to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid bone 

growth at early lifestages. This effect applies with particular 

importance to children’s teeth since it has been established 

that excessive exposure to fluoride during tooth development in 

infancy and childhood causes dental fluorosis. To account for 

uncertainties, the CalEPA REL included a factor of 10 for 

intraspecies differences (which also accounts for variation in 

kinetics between children and adults). In addition, the chronic 

inhalation REL is lower than the oral chronic REL and the 

 developing these assessments is similar to that used by the EPA to develop 

IRIS values and incorporates significant external scientific peer review. The 

EPA may use CalEPA values in the absence of an IRIS value. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf. 21 Derryberry OM, Bartholomew MD, Fleming RBL. 1963. “Fluoride exposure and 

worker health.” Arch Environ Health 6:503-514.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 96 of 444 Formatted: Normal

California Public Health Guidance for fluoride in drinking 

water, which are based on lifetime exposure and protective of 

infants and children. CalEPA also considered the acute toxicity 

of HF and established a 1-hour REL of 0.24 mg/m3 based on mild 

eye and respiratory irritation.

With respect to the potential health effects of HF, we know 

the following:

• Chronic exposure at or below the REL is not expected to 

cause adverse effects.

• There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic 

potential of HF. With regard to the carcinogenic potential 

evidence available, the ATSDR Public Health Statement 

document on HF states that “carcinogenicity via inhalation 

of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most 

investigators reporting in the existing literature.”22

• There is significant evidence on the health effects of 

acute exposure to HF allowing for the derivation of an 

acute health benchmark.

Based on the negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s 

knowledge of how HF reacts in the body and its likely mechanism 

of action, as discussed above, the agency considers HF to be a 

threshold pollutant.

2. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its 

discretion whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard?

It is clear theThe EPA may exercise its discretionary 

authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) only with respect to 

 22 Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 97 of 444 Formatted: Normal

pollutants with a health threshold. Where there is an 

established threshold, the EPA interprets CAA section 112(d)(4) 

to allow it to weigh additional factors, beyond any established 

health threshold, in making a judgment whether to set a standard 

for a specific pollutant based on the threshold or instead 

follow the traditional path of developing a MACT standard after 

determining a MACT floor. In deciding whether to exercise its 

discretion for a threshold pollutant for a given source 

category, the EPA interprets CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow it 

to take into account factors such as the following:

• The availability of data to set the health-based standard;

• Co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, 

such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or 

criteria pollutants;

• The potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the 

pollutant; and

• The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to 

concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with 

similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other 

source categories, where the concentration of the threshold 

pollutant emitted from the given source category is below 

the threshold.

If the EPA does determine that it is appropriate to set a 

standard based on a health threshold, the agency must develop 

emission standards that will ensure the public will not be 

exposed to levels of the pertinent HAP emitted from the source 

category in question in excess of the health threshold, with an 

ample margin of safety.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 98 of 444 Formatted: Normal

a. Availability of Data to Determine a Standard

In determining whether to set a health-based standard, the 

EPA considered whether sufficient data for a particular industry 

are available to determine such a standard. In previous rules, 

the EPA declined to set a health-based standard, based in part 

on the unavailability of data to determine a standard.23 However, 

for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, because of the 

relatively small number of facilities compared to other rules 

such as the Boiler MACT proposal, the EPA was able to determine 

facility-specific information, including tunnel kiln locations 

and operating characteristics and stack parameters, available 

for all BSCP facilities to assess the feasibility of healthbased standards in this rule. Such information enabled us to 

conduct the dispersion modeling necessary to establish a healthbased emission limit for acid gases.24 Consequently, we have 

concluded that we have enough information to determine the 

health-based emission standards for the acid gases HF, HCl and

Cl2 for the BSCP manufacturing industry. As discussed in further 

detail below, these limits have been developed to ensure that 

 23 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010) (“[W]e 

have concluded that we do not have sufficient information at this time to 

establish what the health-based emission standards would be for HCl or the 

other acid gases.”). 24 For more information, see the technical memorandum, “Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category”,” in Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 99 of 444 Formatted: Normal

exposure is below the health threshold for each facility and 

also ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health 

concerns.25

b. Co-benefits

We also considered whether setting technology-based MACT 

standards for HF, HCl and Cl2 from BSCP plants would result in 

significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most 

notably sulfur dioxide (SO2). Although MACT standards may 

directly address only HAP, not criteria pollutants, Congress did 

recognize, in the legislative history to CAA section 112(d)(4), 

that MACT standards would have the collateral benefit of 

controlling criteria pollutants as well and viewed this as an 

important benefit of the air toxics program.26 Therefore, even 

where the EPA concludes a HAP has a health threshold, the agency 

may consider such co-benefits as a factor in determining whether 

to exercise its discretion under CAA section 112(d)(4). The 

additional nationwide reductions of SO2 that would be 

attributable to BSCP MACT standards for acid gases are estimated 

to be only 4,300 tpy in the third year following promulgation of 

 25 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 (Sept.September

9, 2010) (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short-term emissions 

of HCl from cement kilns which might allow us to determine whether a chronic 

health-based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will 

not pose health concerns.”). 26 See S. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 172.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 100 of 444 Formatted: Normal

the proposed BSCP standards. This reduction is substantially 

lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for other 

industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a healthbased limit,27 and it would not be expected to provide a 

significant public health benefit.

c. Ecosystem Impacts

In addition to potential health impacts, the EPA has 

evaluated the potential for environmental impacts when 

considering whether to exercise discretion under CAA section

112(d)(4).28 The agency applied the environmental risk screen 

methodology that it uses in the Risk and Technology Program 

 27 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970 (September 9, 2010) –

Co-benefits was identified as the “decisive factor” in the Portland Cement 

NESHAP Final Rule. 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. There, EPA declined to set a healthbased standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other 

HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO2 and other HAP 

gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO2 alone 

attributable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons 

per year” and discussing both direct SO2 effects and effects of SO2 as a 

precursor to PM2.5) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl2), 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride (HF))] are also controlled 

during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet 

scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when 

considering a health-based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT 

Final Rule, 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this 

issue and continues to believe that the co-benefits are significant and 

provide an additional basis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not 

appropriate to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler 

MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010) – Co-benefits from MACT 

standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 

340,000 tons per year of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP 

acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and mercuryHg. See also MATS Proposed Rule, 76 

FR 24976, 25051/1 – Co-benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as 

surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year 

of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen 

bromide) and mercuryHg. 28 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/3 (September 9, 

2010).

Formatted: Highlight
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 101 of 444 Formatted: Normal

under section 112 of the CAA to evaluate the potential for 

chronic exposure to acid gases emitted by BSCP facilities to 

cause phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants.

The environmental screen uses air concentrations from the 

HEM-3 model used in the human health exposure and risk analysis. 

We take these concentrations and derive an area-weighted average 

offsite annual ambient air concentration for each pollutant. The 

area-weighted average concentrations are compared directly to 

the appropriate ecological benchmarks for a given pollutant by 

dividing the area-weighted average concentration by the 

appropriate ecological benchmark. The result is called a hazard 

quotient (HQ). An HQ greater than 1 indicated that the areaweighted average concentration exceeded the ecological 

benchmark.

For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the 

acid gases HCl and HF around each BSCP facility. Although Cl2 may 

also be emitted from BSCP facilities, chlorine gas is so 

reactive that it is not expected to remain in the environment 

very long after it is released. Chlorine immediately reacts with 

both organic and inorganic materials that it comes into contact 

with. Chlorine undergoes direct photolysis in the air and its 

half-life in the troposphere is on the order of several minutes. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 102 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Therefore, it was not considered in the environmental risk 

screening for the BSCP Manufacturing source category.

For HCl, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 

area-weighted average modeled concentrations of HCl around each 

facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the 

ecological benchmark. In addition, there was only one facility 

with a modeled concentration of HCl at an offsite receptor 

location that exceeded the ecological benchmark and that was at 

a single receptor.

For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 

area-weighted average modeled concentrations of HF around each 

facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the 

ecological benchmarks. There were multiple facilities with 

modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that 

exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the 

value was exceeded was less than one percent of the offsite 

modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there would 

not be any significant or widespread environmental effects.

d. Cumulative Effects

The EPA may consider the availability of information on 

emissions from co-located and nearby sources and consider if it 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 103 of 444 Formatted: Normal

is feasible to determine the potential cumulative health effects 

from emissions from the sources in the category when combined 

with other emissions from other sources that are co-located or 

located nearby. Relevant emissions may include both emissions of 

the same pollutant and emissions of other pollutants that may 

cause cumulative effects.

Through the BSCP industry’s responses to the 2008 EPA 

survey and the 2010 EPA survey, we have substantial information 

on the locations of BSCP plants and the levels of HF, HCl and Cl2

emitted from those plants. BSCP plants are not commonly colocated with any other type of operations. They are typically

located near the source of the raw materials on large tracts of 

land from which raw materials are extracted. This provides an 

additional buffer between the BSCP plants and the surrounding 

area. Because of the relatively low plume heights, maximum risks 

from the BSCP plants are located close to the facility property 

line. In trying to define cumulative risks from nearby non-BSCP 

emissions, the location and emissions associated with other 

sources not in the BSCP manufacturingManufacturing source 

category are far less certain. While the EPA 2008 survey and EPA 

2010 survey data for BSCP facilities have been reviewed by EPA 

engineers and scientists, the emissions levels and locations of 

nearby other facilities, such as those in the NEI, have not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 104 of 444 Formatted: Normal

undergone the same level of detailed review. Thus, a 

quantitative analysis of nearby emissions wouldmay contain a 

great deal ofsignificant uncertainty. However, as discussed 

above, because of the large footprint of these plantsBSCP 

facilities, their rural locations and the BSCP risks being 

confined to the near plant locations, we do not expect that the 

combined emissions of HF, HCl or Cl2 from BSCP facilities and 

nearby other sources would result in substantial cumulative 

health and environmental effects.

3. How did the EPA set the level of the standard?

Based on the EPA’s findings, including the minimal 

cumulative health and environmental effects expected from colocated and nearby sources, the minimal co-benefits of setting 

technology-based MACT standards for acid gases, the minimal 

ecosystem impacts from setting a health-based standard in place 

of a MACT standard and the availability of data to determine a 

health-based standard, the EPA is proposing to exercise its 

discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is 

consistent with the EPA’s prior decisions where we found it 

appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the 

authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, because the 

circumstances in this case differ from those previous 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 105 of 444 Formatted: Normal

considerations. We request comment on the analysis and 

conclusions regarding setting health-based standards.

Following from the EPA’s determination that a health-based 

standard is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health 

effects on which the threshold is based.

• There must be no observable adverse effect.

• The standard must not allow greater adverse environmental 

effects than the MACT standard that would otherwise be 

established.

• A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from 

compliance based on a showing that the source’s emissions 

do not pose a health risk.

CAA section 112(d)(4) expressly states that the healthbased standard must be set at the threshold level “with an ample 

margin of safety.” In addition, the legislative history of CAA 

section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health-based emission limit 

under CAA section 112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which 

no observable effects occur, with an ample margin of safety.29

Because the statute requires an ample margin of safety, it would 

be reasonable to set any CAA section 112(d)(4) emission standard 

for a pollutant with a health threshold at a level that at least 

assures that, for the sources in the controlled category or 

subcategory, persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would 

not experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold 

 29 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32030/2 (June 4, 2010), citing 

S.Rep. 101–228 at 171–72.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 106 of 444 Formatted: Normal

is based.30 The legislative history also states that establishing 

a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard rather than a conventional MACT 

standard “shall not result in adverse environmental effects 

which would otherwise be reduced or eliminated.”31

The EPA’s decision to exercise its discretion to use CAA 

section 112(d)(4) will not be used to exclude sources from 

compliance. The EPA does not believe that a plain reading of the 

statute supports the establishment of an approach in which the 

EPA excludes specific facilities from complying with emissions 

limits if the facility demonstrates that its emissions do not 

pose a health risk. While CAA section 112(d)(4) authorizes the 

EPA to consider the level of the health threshold for pollutants 

which have an established threshold, that threshold may be 

considered when establishing emissions standards under CAA 

section 112(d). Therefore, the EPA must still establish 

emissions standards under CAA section 112(d) even if it chooses 

to exercise its discretion to consider an established health 

threshold.32

 30 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010). 31 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54985/2 (September 9, 

2010), citing S.Rep. 101-228 at 171-72. 32 See Boiler MACT Final Rule, 76 FR 15608, 15643/3-14644/1 (March 21, 2011). 

See also MATS Final Rule, 77 FR 9304, 9406/1 (February 16, 2012) (same point 

using nearly identical text).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 107 of 444 Formatted: Normal

As part of the development of the proposed standards, we

have maintained an inventory of major source facilities, 

including the size and operating hours of each tunnel kiln and 

the geographic location and physical attributes (e.g., stack 

height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each tunnel kiln stack. 

To develop a health-based emission limit, both long-term and 

short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks 

from the BSCP manufacturing source category were estimated using 

the Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector HEM-3 version 

1.3.1). The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment 

activities: (1) conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing 

within 50 kilometers of the modeled sources and (3) estimating 

individual and population-level inhalation risks using the 

exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information.

The air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model (AERMOD) 

is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing pollutant 

concentrations from industrial facilities. To perform the 

dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk 

estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a 

library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1one year (2011) of hourly 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 108 of 444 Formatted: Normal

surface and upper air observations for 824 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and 

Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau 

census block internal point locations and populations provides 

the basis of human exposure calculations.33 In addition, for each 

census block, the census library includes the elevation and 

controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion 

calculations. A third library of pollutant unit risk factors and 

other health benchmarks is used to estimate health risks. These 

risk factors and health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and other toxic air pollutants. 

The chronic and acute values for the acid gases evaluated in 

this assessment are presented in Tables 7 and 8 of this 

preamble, respectively. Further information on the development 

and sources of these benchmarks and the overall modeling 

approach is presented in the technical memorandum, “Risk 

Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for 

Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291.

 33 USEPA Human Exposure Model; available at http://www2.epa.gov/fera/downloadhuman-exposure-model-hem.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 109 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Table 7—Dose-Response Values for Chronic Inhalation Exposure to 

Acid Gases

Pollutant CAS Numbera

RfC

(mg/m3) Source

Hydrogen chloride 7647010 0.02 IRIS

Hydrogen fluoride 7664393 0.014 CalEPA

Chlorine 7782505 0.00015 ATSDR

a Chemical Abstract Services identification number. For groups of compounds 

that lack a CAS number, we have used a surrogate 3-digit identifier 

corresponding to the group’s position on the CAA list of HAP.

Table 8—Dose-Response Values for Acute Inhalation Exposure to 

Acid Gasesa

Pollutant

CAS 

Number

AEGL-1

(1-hr)

(mg/m3)

AEGL-2

(1-hr)

(mg/m3)

ERPG-1

(mg/m3)

ERPG-2

(mg/m3) REL

Hydrogen chloride 7647010 2.7 33 4.5 30 2.1

Hydrogen fluoride 7664393 0.82 20 1.6 16 0.24

Chlorine 7782505 1.5 5.8 2.9 8.7 0.21

a AEGL = Acute Exposure Guideline Level, ERPG = Emergency Response Planning 

Guideline

In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we 

used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of 

each acid gas emitted by each source in the source category. The 

air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were 

used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 

concentration for all the people who reside in that census 

block. Chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed by 

comparing a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio. 

The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by a reference level 

(e.g., the RfC). For a given acid gas, exposures at or below the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 110 of 444 Formatted: Normal

reference level (HQ less than or equal to 1) are not likely to 

cause adverse health effects. As exposures increase above the 

reference level (HQs increasingly greater than 1), the potential 

for adverse effects increases. For a typical risk assessment 

where multiple pollutants are co-emitted, we aggregate noncancer 

HQs of HAP that act by similar toxic modes of action or (where 

this information is absent) that affect the same target organ. 

This process creates, for each target organ, a specific hazard 

index (TOSHI) defined as the sum of HQs for individual HAP that 

affect the same organ or organ system. Because we performed HEM3 model runs for each acid gas individually, we did not 

aggregate HQ values of different acid gases. Of course, multiple 

acid gas pollutants are emitted at BSCP facilities, but a 250 

tpy level of HCl-equivalent emissions (based on the HEM risks 

modeling) ensures that a TOSHI of 1 is not exceeded as long as 

the HCl-equivalent emissions do not exceed 250 tpy. It is 

important to note that this emission limit is only applicable to 

the sources in this source category and should not be considered 

for sources other than those included in this analysis. 

Equivalent emissions for other acid gases are determined by the 

ratio of the chronic RfCs to that for HCl, such that the HClequivalent emissions for HF are 175 tpy and for Cl2 are 1.9 tpy.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 111 of 444 Formatted: Normal

For the assessment of potential health risks from acute 

exposures to the acid gases, we performed a screening assessment 

using conservative assumptions that in combination approximate a 

worst-case exposure. The acute exposure scenario assumed worstcase meteorology (from 1one year of local meteorology) and that 

a person is located downwind at the point of maximum impact 

during this same worst-case 1-hour period, but no nearer to the 

source than 100 meters, which is conservative for this industry 

given our understanding of the locations of these facilities.

Screening for potentially significant acute inhalation 

exposures also followed the HQ approach. We divided the maximum 

estimated acute exposure by each available short-term threshold 

value to develop an array of HQ values relative to the various 

acute endpoints and thresholds. In general, when none of these 

HQ values are greater than 1, there is low potential for acute 

risk. In those cases where HQ values above 1 are seen, 

additional information is used to determine if there is a 

potential for significant acute risks. Additional information 

for facilities in the BSCP manufacturing source category 

included using aerial imagery of the facilities to determine the 

maximum offsite 1-hour concentrations.

Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic 

dose-response values, the 250 tpy level does not necessarily 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 112 of 444 Formatted: Normal

ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the 

HCl and Cl2 model runs, there were no facilities with acute 

screening HQ values exceeding 1. For HF, we estimate that four 

of the 91 facilities examined had an acute value exceed the REL,

with the highest being 2. However, no facility exceeded an HQ 

(AEGL-1) value for HF. To assure that no single hour source

emits more than the 250 tpy HCl-equivalent limit in a single 

hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly 

equivalent of 250 tpy (57 lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions).

It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds 

are developed from back-calculating the emissions that would 

result in an HQ of 1 at the worst-case facility. Potential risks 

at other facilities (not the worst-case facility) are predicted 

to be well below 1.

Because we had site-specific data on the operation of each 

tunnel kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling to ensure 

that (1) the health-based emission limit cited above for BSCP 

facilities provides an ample margin of safety and (2) persons 

exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not experience the 

adverse health effects on which the threshold is based. In 

addition, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas emissions 

associated with BSCP kilns, based on results from the EPA’s 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 113 of 444 Formatted: Normal

environmental risk screen methodology outlined above, are not 

expected to have an adverse environmental impact.

Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the healthbased emission limit by determining their facility-wide HCl, HF

and Cl2 emissions, calculating the HCl-equivalent emissions for 

HF and Cl2 using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the 

HCl-equivalent values to calculate the total HCl-equivalent 

emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided 

in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. For more information on 

the development of the health-based standard see the technical 

memorandum “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based 

Emissions Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. For more information on the calculation of 

an HCl-equivalent value, see the technical memorandum 

“Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP 

NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice 

standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not 

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The EPA 

is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for certain 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 114 of 444 Formatted: Normal

HAP from certain BSCP manufacturing sources is not feasible 

because the application of measurement methodology to certain 

sources is not practicable due to technological and economic 

limitations. Specifically, the EPA is proposing a work practice 

standard for BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of emission limits for 

acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl2), Hg and non-Hg HAP metals. The EPA 

is also proposing a work practice standard for dioxin/furan 

emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu of a dioxin/furan 

emission limit. The rationale for these work practice standards 

is discussed in the paragraphs below. We request comment on how 

the work practice standards were developed and the proposed 

standards themselves.

1. Periodic Kilns

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of 

Emission Standard

Overview. Periodic kilns are batch process units that are 

used for firing BSCP under a carefully controlled environment. 

The large majority of BSCP are fired in tunnel kilns, which 

operate continuously and are much more energy-efficient than 

periodic kilns when producing BSCP of a uniform type, such as 

standard building bricks. In contrast, periodic kilns can 

readily accommodate variations in firing temperature profiles 

and cycle times to match the requirements of a wide variety of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 115 of 444 Formatted: Normal

products. As a result, periodic kilns generally are reserved for 

specialty products and typically are used only when necessary.34

In the BSCP industry, periodic kilns are classified as 

either beehive kilns or shuttle kilns, but all operate generally 

the same. A batch of unfired bricks or shapes is loaded into the 

cold kiln, the kiln is sealed and the burners are ignited and 

controlled to carefully increase the temperature according to a 

time-temperature profile specific to the products being 

manufactured. Once firing is complete, the temperature in the 

kiln is reduced, the burners are extinguished and the fired 

product is allowed to cool. When the product is at or near 

ambient temperature, the kiln is opened and the fired products 

are removed.35

Based on responses to the 2008 EPA survey sent to the BSCP 

industry, periodic kiln cycle times range from 35 to 168 hours 

per cycle and typically take 48 to 58 hours. These cycle times 

cover the period beginning when the burners are first ignited 

and ending when the burners are cut off. It may take an 

additional 8 to 10 hours for the fired products to cool before 

they can be removed from the kiln.36

 34 See the memorandum titled “Rationale for Establishing Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. 35 Id. 36 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 116 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Emissions. Based on limited data from the testing of three 

BSCP periodic kilns using Method 320 (Fourier transform infrared 

(FTIR) spectroscopy), emissions of HF and HCl begin within the 

first 5 to 10 hours of the firing cycle and continue throughout 

the firing cycle. Emissions are highly variable and can 

experience large spikes at various points throughout the cycle. 

In addition, it is likely that emissions continue beyond the 

completion of the firing cycle, as the fired products cool. HF 

concentrations in the kiln exhaust can still exceed 100 parts 

per million at the end of the firing cycle.37

Testing Periodic Kilns for Emissions of HF and HCl. The 

conventional compliance test requirement for most emission 

sources is to test each source for three 1-hour test runs. This 

requirement is based on the assumptions that the source operates 

continuously and that emissions are relatively constant. 

However, there generally are some variations in emissions. For 

this reason, the source is tested over three separate runs and

the results are averaged to generate a number that is 

representative of typical emissions.38

Unlike continuous sources, emissions from BSCP periodic 

kilns can vary significantly over the course of one cycle. 

 37 Id. 38 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 117 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Because of these variations and the fact that emissions begin 

shortly after the start of the firing cycle and continue beyond 

the end of the cycle for an undetermined period of time, the 

conventional compliance test requirement of three 1-hour test 

runs cannot accurately measure emissions. Instead, the only way 

to accurately determine the total emissions from a BSCP periodic 

kiln cycle is to measure the emissions throughout the entire 

firing cycle and continuing beyond the completion of the cycle 

until emission levels become negligible. Testing for any less 

time could result in estimated emissions that are either much 

higher or much lower than actual emissions, depending on when 

during the kiln cycle emissions are sampled.39

Because of the variations during firing cycles and 

variations across the tests, sampling a single kiln cycle is not 

adequate for characterizing periodic kiln emissions, so more 

than one kiln cycle would have to be tested. Given that BSCP 

periodic kiln cycle times typically range from 48 to 58 hours, 

each periodic kiln would need to be tested for more than 100 

hours in order to determine an emission rate that is 

representative of normal operating conditions. Also, because 

BSCP periodic kilns are used to fire specialty products that may 

have significantly differently time-temperature profiles, it 

 39 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 118 of 444 Formatted: Normal

would be necessary to test the same kiln multiple times to 

characterize emissions from different types of products.40

Test Methods. The standard reference methods for measuring 

emissions of HF and HCl are EPA Methods 26 and 26A. These

methods are reliable and relatively inexpensive. However, if 

emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears 

to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns, breakthrough of HCl can 

occur. That is, the testing apparatus reaches its capacity for 

absorbing HCl and subsequent HCl in the emissions are not 

captured. It is not known if breakthrough has occurred until a 

breakthrough analysis is performed after completion of the test. 

If it is determined that breakthrough has occurred, retesting is 

necessary. Another disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for 

testing throughout periodic kiln cycles is the need for 

additional manpower to operate the sampling trains around the 

clock and to recover samples.41

An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduct the 

tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320. With FTIR, HCl 

breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides 

near real-time emissions data. However, as noted in the 

following section, the cost for testing by FTIR is expensive, 

 40 Id. 41 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 119 of 444 Formatted: Normal

similar to the cost for testing by Methods 26 or 26A throughout 

an entire cycle.42

Emission Test Costs. The cost for testing by FTIR is 

estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50-hour kiln 

cycle. If it were determined that the variations in emissions 

from cycle to cycle were significant, it would be necessary to 

test each kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a 

representative emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would 

double the testing cost to almost $100,000 and testing for a 

third cycle would triple the cost to almost $150,000 (2009 

dollars). In addition to these costs, additional costs would be 

incurred for testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would 

have to be tested using a manual test method (e.g., EPA Methods 

5 or 17). If testing were extended into the cooling period, the 

costs would be even higher.43

To address the potential economic impact of a requirement 

to test periodic kilns, we conducted a cost-to-sales assessment.

(See the memorandum “Economic Feasibility of Testing Periodic 

Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.) The 

conclusion that testing is not economically feasible for most of 

the kilns is quite clear. Over half of the kilns included in the 

 42 Id. 43 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 120 of 444 Formatted: Normal

analysis have estimated cost-to-sales percentages greater than 3

percent. The economic analysis estimates that for the upper end 

of the closure estimate for the other kilns when the costs are 

between 3 percent and 5 percent, one-quarter of the firms will 

close. This possibility of closure makes this level of costs for 

testing not economically feasible.

Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Periodic 

Kilns. CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may 

prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, 

consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in 

those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is 

not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA section 

112(h)(2)(B) further defines the term “not feasible” in this 

context to apply when “the application of measurement technology 

to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations.”

Because of the technological and economic limitations 

described above, we conclude that it is not practicable to 

establish numerical emission limits for BSCP periodic kilns. 

Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit for 

periodic kilns is technologically limited to testing procedures 

that are economically infeasible for the BSCP industry. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 121 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Consequently, we are proposing a work practice standard for BSCP 

periodic kilns under CAA section 112(h).44

b. Development of Work Practice Standard

Information provided to the EPA indicates there are six 

operational factors that have a direct bearing on HAP emissions 

from BSCP periodic kilns: temperature, firing cycle, product 

quality, automatic control, combustion control and kiln 

load/kiln technology.45 These six operational factors and their 

impact on HAP emissions are described further in the paragraphs 

below.

Temperature. Various scientific test methods are used to 

study the reactions in brick clays during heating. Differential 

thermal analysis, thermo gravimetric analysis and simultaneous 

thermal analysis are techniques used to show the oxidation, dehydroxylation and vitrification reactions, as well as the weight 

loss characteristics of the material. Knowledge of these 

reaction characteristics would enable the brick manufacturer to 

design the kiln firing cycle for the optimization of the product 

quality and to minimize process losses. Ensuring good product 

quality and minimizing process losses would eliminate the need 

for additional production firing cycles to meet the quantities 

 44 Id. 45 See the memorandum titled “Work Practice Standards for Periodic Kiln 

Operations,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 122 of 444 Formatted: Normal

demanded by the market, thereby avoiding the generation of 

additional HAP emissions.46

Firing Cycle. Each periodic firing process in the brick 

industry is unique and is governed by the nature of the brick 

clay material being fired. For example, some shale materials 

have higher carbon and sulfur levels and require a longer 

“dwell” at the oxidation temperature range from 1,600 °F to 

1,700 °F, while other clay materials are more refractory in 

nature and require higher final firing temperatures in order to 

develop the desired finished color and the physical properties 

to meet the ASTM standards required by the market. These factors 

influence the period of time in the oxidation stages, as well as 

the time required in the final “soak” stage of the firing cycle.

HAP emissions have also been shown to take place in these stages 

of the firing cycle.47 Consequently, knowledge of these factors 

is key to avoiding any additional emissions during these stages.

Product Quality. The time and temperature relationships 

previously described affect the ultimate quality and 

acceptability of the finished product. An “over-fired” product 

would produce excessive shrinkage, color variation and process 

losses. This type of firing cycle would likely produce higher 

 46 Id. 47 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 123 of 444 Formatted: Normal

HAP emissions per ton of ware fired. Similarly, an under-fired 

product would not meet durability standards required by the ASTM 

standards and the market. While under-firing the product would 

produce less HAP emissions, more product would have to be fired 

to meet production requirements, which would lead to more HAP 

emissions per sellable ton of ware. Therefore, any work practice 

standard would need to be a practice that produces the best 

product quality and the minimum HAP emissions. This optimized 

work practice would entail developing an optimum firing cycle 

for each particular brick clay body.48

Automatic Control. The design of the kiln firing system 

influences the brick manufacturers’ ability to achieve 

repeatable, maximum product quality results. Most periodic kiln 

operators in the brick industry have used modern programmable 

logic controller (PLC) technology for some time. These systems 

enable the brick manufacturer to program the kiln firing 

temperature over a well-established, optimized time cycle, to 

achieve repeatable results. Modern high-velocity burner 

technology is commonly employed.49 Achieving repeatable, maximum 

product quality results would eliminate the need to fire 

 48 Id. 49 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 124 of 444 Formatted: Normal

additional product to meet production requirements, thereby 

avoiding the generation of additional HAP emissions.

Combustion Control. The use of PLC technology enables the 

rate of gas delivery to the burner system to be accurately 

programmed, to ensure that each stage of the firing cycle is 

accurately controlled and to avoid over-firing or under-firing. 

The measuring devices that are part of the combustion equipment 

enable the kiln operator to adjust the air-to-fuel ratios in 

each stage, to achieve the optimum combustion efficiency needed 

to produce the desired product. In this way, the production of 

poor quality, rejects and losses is minimized. Technology that 

does not achieve this would produce higher losses and poor 

quality, resulting in additional production firing cycles being 

required to meet the quantities demanded by the market and 

additional HAP emissions.50

Kiln Load/Kiln Technology. For proper combustion, it is 

important that the periodic kiln not be overloaded, as 

overloading could cause improper combustion and lost product, 

resulting in additional production firing cycles and additional 

HAP emissions. To ensure proper firing, the following parameters 

should be addressed:51

 50 Id. 51 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 125 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• Employment of draft controls on exhaust fans to adjust 

exhaust volume flow.

• Measurement, monitoring and control of kiln pressure by 

adjustment of kiln exhaust.

• Measurement and monitoring of kiln temperatures.

• Measurement and control of air and fuel flow to the 

combustion system.

Work Practice Standard. Based on these six operational 

factors, the following work practice standard is proposed under 

CAA section 112(h):52

• Each facility would have to develop and use a designed 

firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced 

in the periodic kiln, by programming the time and 

temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on 

a log sheet.

• Each facility would have to label each periodic kiln with 

the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln 

during a single firing cycle.

• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the 

maximum load and document the total tonnage placed in the 

kiln to show that it is not greater than the maximum load.

• Each facility would have to develop and implement 

maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the 

frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following 

items:

o Calibration of temperature measuring devices

o Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios

o Controls that regulate firing cycles

• Each facility would have to develop and maintain records 

required for each periodic kiln, including logs to document 

the proper operation of the periodic kilns and logs of the 

maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with 

the standard.

 52 See the email titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the docket for the 

proposed BSCP rulemaking.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 126 of 444 Formatted: Normal

2. Dioxin/Furan Emissions

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard

The significant majority of measured dioxin/furan emissions 

from BSCP tunnel kilns are BDL and, the EPA considers it 

impracticable to reliably measure dioxin/furan emissions from 

these units. (Note: Both dioxin/furan emissions and detection 

levels are in terms of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

(TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQ).) The fact that the majority of 

measurements are so low casts doubt on whether the tests 

accurately measured the true levels of emissions. The 

dioxins/furans for each run were compared to one-half the RDL 

developed for utilities.53 Overall, 15 out of 18 test runs (83 

percent of the entire test run dataset) contained dioxin/furan 

estimates below one-half of the RDL. Based on the difficulties 

with accurate measurements at the levels of dioxins/furans 

encountered from tunnel kilns and the economics associated with 

units trying to apply measurement methodology to test for 

compliance with numerical limits, we are concluding that 

application of measurement methodology is not practicable and 

are proposing to set a work practice standard under CAA section 

 53 Johnson, S. Determination of “non-detect” from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) 

and EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of 

MACT floors versus establishing work practice standards. June 5, 2014.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 127 of 444 Formatted: Normal

112(h). We request comment on the rationale for setting work 

practice standards.

b. Work Practice Standard

The proposed work practice standard described below ensures 

that equipment is maintained and run so as to minimize emissions 

of dioxins and furans. The work practice would involve 

maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion 

controls (as applicable), tuning the specific burner type to 

optimize combustion, keeping records of each burner tune-up and

submitting a report for each tune-up conducted. Dioxins/furans

are products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and optimizing 

combustion limits the formation of PIC, thereby minimizing 

emissions of dioxins/furans.

We are proposing that the tune-up must be conducted no less 

frequently than every 36 calendar months. Initial compliance 

with the work practice standard of maintaining burners must 

occur within 180 days of the compliance date of the BSCP 

manufacturing rule. The initial compliance demonstration for the 

work practice standard of conducting a tune-up must occur no 

later than 42 months (36 months plus 180 days) from the 

effective date of the final BSCP manufacturing rule. We request 

comment on the proposed work practice standards.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 128 of 444 Formatted: Normal

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

As noted in section III.B of this preamble, tunnel kilns 

typically operate continuously, so startups and shutdowns are 

infrequent. Startup of a tunnel kiln involves starting up the 

burners based on a set procedure to raise the temperature of the 

kiln to the proper operational temperature for manufacturing 

bricks or structural clay products. Shutdown of a tunnel kiln is 

the process of cooling the kiln from the proper operational 

temperature by stopping the burners based on a set procedure. 

When the temperature of the kiln is below the proper operational 

temperature, BSCP manufacturers typically do not push new 

product into the kiln, so the emissions are not expected to be 

the same during startup and shutdown as during normal 

operations.

While the kiln is heating to the proper operational 

temperature during startup or cooling from the operational 

temperature during shutdown, other parameters such as exhaust 

flow rate, moisture content, O2 concentration and pressure are 

also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may 

not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown 

progresses, as the kiln does not heat or cool evenly. The 

fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 129 of 444 Formatted: Normal

relatively steady-state conditions needed for valid, accurate 

results over three test runs using the measurement methods 

proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance.

Even if testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, 

most of the emission limit formats chosen for this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule are not appropriate for use during periods 

other than normal operation. For example, if there is no 

throughout in the kiln, emission limits that are in a mass per 

throughput format would be essentially meaningless. In addition, 

the concentration based-standards are corrected to a specified O2

concentration to avoid the use of dilution air to lower the 

measured concentration, but during startup and shutdown, the O2

concentration in the kiln exhaust is likely to fluctuate. This 

means that even if an owner or operator could conduct an 

emissions test and measure the O2 content during startup and 

shutdown for comparison to the O2-corrected emission limit, the 

fluctuations in O2 content and other parameters in the kiln mean 

that the O2-corrected emissions are also fluctuating.

For tunnel kilns with an APCD, venting the kiln exhaust 

through the APCD at low temperatures can cause operational 

problems, including moisture in the bags of a baghouse or 

solidification of the lime in a DIFF. Therefore, the BSCP owners 

and operators that responded to the SSM portion of the 2010 EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 130 of 444 Formatted: Normal

survey indicated that they bypass the APCD if the kiln exhaust 

temperature is below a “low temperature set point.” Based on 

information received through the 2010 EPA survey, this kiln 

exhaust temperature ranges from 284 to 400 °F for startup and 

from 150 to 300 °F for shutdown. All of the EPA survey

respondents indicated that no new product is introduced to the 

kiln as long as the APCD is bypassed, so that emissions are

minimized.

Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. 

For startup, the owner or operator would be required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln 

exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In addition, no bricks or 

other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln 

exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being 

vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator

would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the

APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In 

addition, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln 

once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the 

exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. When the 

kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or 

operator would be required to comply with the applicable 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 131 of 444 Formatted: Normal

continuous compliance requirements described in section III.G of 

this preamble.

For kilns that can meet the proposed standards without an 

APCD, there are no concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures 

for bypassing an APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data 

through the 2010 EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of 

uncontrolled kilns. However, as noted above, we recognize that 

it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Therefore, we are proposing work practice

standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel 

kilns without an APCD. For startup, no bricks or other product

may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be 

put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 

°F. When there are bricks in the kiln, the owner or operator

would be required to comply with the applicable continuous 

compliance requirements described in section III.G of this 

preamble.

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that 

are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the 

requirements of this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. These 

requirements are described in detail in sections III.F and III.G
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 132 of 444 Formatted: Normal

of this preamble. We selected these requirements based upon our 

determination of the information necessary to ensure that the 

emission standards are being met and the work practices are 

being followed and that APCD and equipment are maintained and 

operated properly. Further, these proposed requirements ensure 

compliance with this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule without 

imposing a significant additional burden for facilities that 

must implement them.

We are proposing that initial compliance with the emission 

limits for HF, HCl, Cl2, PM (or non-Hg HAP metals) and Hg be 

demonstrated by an initial performance test. The proposed BSCP

manufacturing rule would also require 5-year repeat performance 

tests to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating 

properly and that its performance has not deteriorated.

The majority of test methods that this proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule would require for the performance stack tests 

(e.g., EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required under many 

other EPA standards. Many of the emissions tests upon which the 

proposed emission limits are based were conducted using these 

test methods.

When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that 

parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To 

ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 133 of 444 Formatted: Normal

the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require continuous 

parameter monitoring of the kilns and APCD and maintaining these 

parameters within the operating limits established during the 

performance test. We selected these parameter monitoring 

requirements because they produce data that will be useful to 

both the owners or operators and the EPA for ensuring continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and/or operating limits and

because of their reasonable cost and ease of execution.

The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed 

rule were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the BSCP 

industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the proposed 

emission limits. These parameters include lime injection rate 

(on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF and DLS/FF; 

pressure drop (or bypass stack damper position) and limestone 

feeder setting for DLA; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and

chemical addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; and 

activated carbon flow rate for ACI systems. If applicable for 

demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl/Cl2 standard, the kiln 

monitoring parameter included in the proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule is the kiln process rate. Many of these CPMS are standard 

features on BSCP tunnel kilns and their associated APCD and have 

also been used in other standards for similar industries.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 134 of 444 Formatted: Normal

In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for kilns 

equipped with a FF (e.g., a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand-alone FF) to 

either install a BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS 

being proposed, BLD systems have also been used in other 

standards in similar industries. We have also determined that 

periodic VE checks are a reasonable alternative to BLD systems

for this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. Periodic VE checks 

have also been proposed for kilns without an add-on control to 

demonstrate continuous compliance.

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which 

affected sources must comply with the emission standards. Under 

CAA section 112(i)(1), new or reconstructed units must be in 

compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or 

the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. (The

final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is 

expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register.)

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), existing sources are allowed 

up to 3 years after the effective date of the rule to comply 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 135 of 444 Formatted: Normal

with the final rule. For this industry, we believe that 3 years 

for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, 

install and test any control systems that may need to be

retrofitted onto existing kilns, as well as obtain permits for 

the use of add-on controls.

The compliance date for existing area sources that

subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 

63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such sources have 3 years from 

the date they become major sources to come into compliance, 

which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing 

sources discussed in the previous paragraph. Further, under the 

current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source

becomes a major source by the addition of equipment or 

operations that meet the definition of new affected source under 

this rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new 

affected source must be in compliance upon initial startup.

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

The owner or operator would be required to comply with the 

applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, 

subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 8 of the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. We evaluated the General 

Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 136 of 444 Formatted: Normal

the notification, recordkeeping and reporting necessary to 

ensure compliance with and effective enforcement of this 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.

We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep 

records on the firing time and temperature cycle for each 

periodic kiln, the type of product fired in each batch and the 

amount of product fired in the periodic kiln, to address the 

operational factors that impact HAP emissions from periodic 

kilns and demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard 

for periodic kilns (discussed further in section IV.K.1 of this 

preamble).

In addition, we are proposing that the owner or operator

keep records and submit a report of each burner tune-up that is 

conducted to ensure good combustion practice and minimize the 

formation of dioxins/furans from incomplete combustion, to

demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan work practice 

standard for tunnel kilns (discussed further in section IV.K.2 

of this preamble).

We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep 

records and submit a report of each malfunction and the 

corrective action taken as part of the next semiannual 

compliance report. The proposed compliance report would provide 

information on each type of malfunction which occurred during 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 137 of 444 Formatted: Normal

the reporting period and which caused or may have caused an 

exceedance of an emission limit.

This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes a 

requirement for electronic reporting of performance test data, 

which is discussed further in section III.I of this preamble.

We request comment on ways that we could streamline the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule by relying on existing business practices.

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

The CAA requires that sources subject to the BSCP 

manufacturing rule, once finalized, be operated pursuant to a 

permit issued under an EPA-approved state operating permit 

program. The operating permit programs are developed under title 

V of the CAA and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 

70 and 71. If the facility is operating in the first 3 years of 

an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to obtain a 

revised permit to incorporate the requirements of this BSCP 

manufacturing rule. If the facility is in the last 2 years of an

operating permit, the owner or operator will need to incorporate 

the requirement of this BSCP manufacturing rule into the next 

renewal of the permit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 138 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Q. What are the alternate approaches the EPA is considering?

1. Alternate Non-Hg HAP Metals Standards

As noted in section IV.E of this preamble, the proposed 

emission limits for total non-Hg HAP metals and PM are based on 

the best performing 27 kilns with a DIFF or DLS/FF (i.e., 12 

percent of the kilns in the industry). Instead of these proposed 

limits, we are considering an alternate approach of setting 

emission limits for total non-Hg HAP metals and PM based on MACT 

floors calculated using the top 12 percent of the data available

in each of the kiln size subcategories, similar to the procedure 

we followed for setting the Hg limits.

The alternate PM limits were calculated using the same 

procedure as described in section IV.E for Hg. In other words, 

the kilns were ranked within each subcategory on the basis of 

their lb/ton PM emissions and the top 12 percent best performing

kilns were identified (top 9 large kilns and top 3 small kilns). 

Both the PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for 

existing sources were calculated based on those top 12 percent. 

The alternate PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for 

new sources were calculated based on the best performing source 

in each subcategory.

As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, the EPA must 

take considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 139 of 444 Formatted: Normal

BSCP alternate options, we have limited datasets for the 

following pollutants and subcategories: PM for new large tunnel 

kilns and PM for new small tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we 

performed the steps outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See 

the Limited Dataset Memo for more information.

The alternate total non-Hg HAP metals limit was calculated 

using a similar methodology as the proposed total non-Hg HAP 

metals limit. Since the alternate total non-Hg HAP metals limits 

were calculated based on smaller datasets, we found that there 

were no small kilns in the top three best performing kilns with 

both PM and non-Hg HAP metals data and only one large kiln in 

the top nine best performing kilns with both PM and non-Hg HAP 

metals data. Therefore, the alternate large kiln total non-Hg 

HAP metals limit for existing sources was calculated by 

multiplying the alternate PM lb/ton limit by the throughput and 

the percentage of non-Hg HAP metals measured in the PM during 

that test. The alternate small kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit for 

existing sources was then set equal to the existing source large 

kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit. For new sources, the best 

performing unit in the PM new source MACT floor pool did not 

have any non-Hg HAP metals data. Therefore, the alternate large 

kiln total non-Hg HAP metals limit for new sources was 

calculated using the average throughput and the average 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 140 of 444 Formatted: Normal

percentage of non-Hg HAP metals measured during tests for kilns 

with a FF-based APCD. The alternate small kiln non-Hg HAP metals 

limit for new sources was then set equal to the new source large 

kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit.

The alternate emissions limits for existing and new sources 

are presented in in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. 

We request comment on the calculation methodology used to 

generate these alternate limits, which is described in the

technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products” in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291), as well as comment on 

whether we should use these limits instead of the limits we are 

proposing.

2. HAP Metals Work Practice Standard

In the recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel, members of the BSCP manufacturing industry

discussed whether work practice standards for Hg and non-Hg HAP 

metals would be more appropriate for BSCP tunnel kilns than 

emissions limits for these pollutants. BSCP manufacturing

industry representatives noted the high percentage of test runs 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 141 of 444 Formatted: Normal

below the respective detection limits in the tests results for 

each metal as support for this suggestion.

We reviewed the available stack test data for Hg and non-Hg 

HAP metals from BSCP tunnel kilns to evaluate this suggestion. 

For Hg, we found that all test runs were actually above the 

detection limits. For the non-Hg HAP metals, we found that only 

one of the individual non-Hg HAP metals had a high percentage of 

test runs below the detection limit. We found a high percentage 

of test runs above the detection limits for all the other non-Hg 

HAP metals. For more information on this analysis, please see 

the technical memorandum “Determination of “Non-Detect” Test 

Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0291.

Because Hg and most of the non-Hg HAP metals are emitted 

from BSCP kilns in detectable levels, the EPA believes it is 

technologically practicable to measure these emissions and they 

do not meet the statutory prerequisite for work practice 

standards under CAA section 112(h). Consequently, we have 

declined to propose work practice standards for Hg or non-Hg HAP 

metals. Although we are not proposing work practices for HAP 

metals, we are requesting comment on this issue. We are 

specifically asking for emissions data or any other information 

relevant to the issue of whether the metals emissions from these 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 142 of 444 Formatted: Normal

sources meet the statutory prerequisite for work practice 

standards in CAA section 112(h).

3. Emissions Averaging

As part of the EPA’s general policy of encouraging the use 

of flexible compliance approaches where they can be properly 

monitored and enforced, we are also requesting comment in this 

proposed rule on whether to include emissions averaging as an 

alternative to the individual MACT floor emission limits in the 

proposed rule. Specifically, the EPA is requesting comment on 

whether to consider alternative emissions averaging limits for 

PM (in units of lb/ton or gr/dscf at 7 percent O2) and total nonHg HAP metals (in units of lb/hr) for existing tunnel kilns.

Emissions averaging can provide sources the flexibility to 

comply in the least costly manner while still maintaining 

regulation that is workable and enforceable. Emissions averaging 

would not be applicable to new sources and could only be used 

between existing tunnel kilns in the same size subcategory 

(large or small) at a particular BSCP facility.

Emissions averaging would allow owners and operators of an 

affected source to demonstrate that the source complies with the

emission limits by averaging the emissions from an individual 

affected unit that is emitting above the emission limits with 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 143 of 444 Formatted: Normal

other affected units at the same facility that are emitting 

below the emission limits.

We are requesting comment on whether to include an 

emissions averaging compliance alternative in which emissions 

averaging represents an equivalent, more flexible, and less 

costly alternative to controlling certain emission points to 

MACT levels. A limited form of averaging could be implemented 

that would not lessen the stringency of the MACT floor limits 

and would provide flexibility in compliance, cost and energy 

savings to owners and operators. We also recognize that we must 

ensure that any emissions averaging option can be implemented 

and enforced, will be clear to sources, and would be no less 

stringent than unit by unit implementation of the MACT floor 

limits.

The EPA has concluded that it is permissible under the 

appropriate circumstances to establish within a NESHAP a unified 

compliance regimen that permits averaging within an affected 

source across individual affected units subject to the standard 

under certain conditions. Averaging across affected units is 

permitted only if it can be demonstrated that the total quantity 

of any particular HAP that may be emitted by that portion of a 

contiguous major source that is subject to the NESHAP will not 

be greater under the averaging mechanism than it could be if 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 144 of 444 Formatted: Normal

each individual affected unit complied separately with the 

applicable standard. Under this test, the practical outcome of 

averaging is equivalent to compliance with the MACT floor limits 

by each discrete unit, and the statutory requirement that the 

MACT standard reflect the maximum achievable emissions

reductions is, therefore, fully effectuated.

In past rulemakings, the EPA has generally imposed certain 

limits on the scope and nature of emissions averaging programs. 

These limits include: (1) no averaging between different types 

of pollutants, (2) no averaging between sources that are not 

part of the same affected source, (3) no averaging between 

individual sources within a single major source if the 

individual sources are not subject to the same NESHAP, and (4) 

no averaging between existing sources and new sources.

Any emissions averaging alternative to the proposed rule 

requirements would fully satisfy each of these criteria. First, 

emissions averaging would only be permitted between individual 

sources at a single existing affected source, and would only be 

permitted between individual sources subject to the Brick and 

Structural Clay NESHAP. Further, emissions averaging would not 

be permitted between two or more different affected sources or 

between two or more sources in different subcategories. Finally, 

new sources could not use emissions averaging. In addition,any 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 145 of 444 Formatted: Normal

emissions averaging alternative would require each facility that 

intends to utilize emissions averaging to submit an emissions 

averaging plan, which provides additional assurance that the 

necessary criteria will be followed. In such an emissions

averaging plan, the facility would include the identification 

of: (1) all units in the averaging group, (2) the control 

technology installed, (3) the process parameter that will be 

monitored, (4) the specific control technology or pollution 

prevention measure to be used, (5) the test plan for the 

measurement of the HAP being averaged, and (6) the operating 

parameters to be monitored for each control device. Upon 

receipt, the regulatory authority would not be able to approve 

an emissions averaging plan containing averaging between 

emissions of different types of pollutants or between sources in 

different subcategories.

This emissions averaging alternative would also exclude new 

affected sources from the emissions averaging provision. The EPA 

believes emissions averaging is not appropriate for new sources 

because it is most cost effective to integrate state-of-the-art 

controls into equipment design and to install the technology 

during construction of new sources. One reason to allow 

emissions averaging under certain circumstances is to give 

existing sources flexibility to achieve compliance at diverse 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 146 of 444 Formatted: Normal

points with varying degrees of add-on control already in place 

in the most cost-effective and technically reasonable fashion. 

This flexibility is not needed for new sources because they can 

be designed and constructed with compliance in mind.

With concern about the equivalency of emissions reductions 

from averaging and non-averaging in mind, we would also include 

under the emissions averaging provision caps on the current 

emissions from each of the sources in the averaging group. The 

emissions for each unit in the averaging group would be capped 

at the emission level being achieved on the effective date of 

the final rule. These caps would ensure that emissions do not 

increase above the emission levels that sources currently are 

designed, operated, and maintained to achieve. In the absence of 

performance tests, in documenting these caps, these sources 

would document the type, design, and operating specification of 

control devices installed on the effective date of the final 

rule to ensure that existing controls are not removed or 

operated less efficiently. By including this provision in this 

proposed rule, we would further ensure that emissions averaging 

results in environmental benefits equivalent to or better than 

without emissions averaging.

In addition, we would plan to include a discount factor of

10 percent that would be applied when emissions averaging is 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 147 of 444 Formatted: Normal

used. This discount factor will further ensure that averaging 

will be at least as stringent as the MACT floor limits in the 

absence of averaging. The EPA is soliciting comment on use of a 

discount factor and whether 10 percent is the appropriate 

discount factor or whether the appropriate discount factor is 

somewhere in the range of 5% to 25%. The emissions averaging 

provision would not apply to individual units if the unit shares 

a common stack with units in other subcategories, because in 

that circumstance it is not possible to distinguish the 

emissions from each individual unit.

The alternative emissions averaging provisions for which we 

are requesting comment in this proposed rule are based in part 

on the emissions averaging provisions in the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP (HON). The legal basis and rationale for the HON 

emissions averaging provisions were provided in the preamble to 

the final HON (59 FR 19425, April 22, 1994).

4. Subcategories Based on Raw Materials

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to create subcategories which 

distinguish among ‘‘classes, types, and sizes of sources’’. 

Section 112(d)(1). EPA is considering that possibilitytaking 

comment on subcategorizing with regard to potential standards 

for mercury emitted by brick kilns. Were EPA to do so, each 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 148 of 444 Formatted: Normal

subcategory would have its own floor and standard, reflecting 

performance of the sources within that subcategory.

EPA may create a subcategory applicable to a single HAP, rather 

than to all HAP emitted by the source category, if the facts 

warrant. Normally, any basis for subcategorizing must be related 

to an effect on emissions, rather than to some difference among 

sources which does not affect emissions performance. The 

subcategorization possibility for mercury which we are 

considering is the mercury concentration of the raw materials in 

the kiln’s clay mine, or geographic location.

EPA does not have sufficient data to determine if mercury 

emissions correlate with the mercury content of the clay used as 

raw material by the kiln. Additionally, EPA does not have data 

that show to what extent mercury content of clay varies by kiln 

location (i.e., geographical distinction) or within a given 

source of clay, and to what extent a source could reduce mercury 

emissions by using an alternate source of clay with lower 

mercury content.

 If data were available to show that the amount of mercury in 

the raw materials significantly affected mercury emissions, and 

that kilns could not reasonably use an alternative source of 

clay with lower mercury content, kilns using raw materials with 

higher mercury content might be considered a different type or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 149 of 444 Formatted: Normal

class of kiln because their process necessarily requires the use 

of that higher-mercury raw materials.

However, data are not available to support subcategorization 

based on the amount of mercury in the raw materials. Such data 

would need to show a correlation between raw material content 

and mercury emissions and also need to indicate sharp 

disparities in raw material mercury content that readily 

differentiate among types of sources. Additionally, data would 

also be needed to show that alternate sources of raw materials 

with lower mercury content are not available or feasible. We 

are specifically asking for mercury emissions data coupled with 

raw materials mercury data. We are also asking for information 

regarding the availability of low mercury clay and the 

feasibility of using low mercury clay to reduce emissions.

EPA realizes that if this data is not currently available, 

obtaining this data may not be possible within the current 

schedule to promulgate the final rule. Therefore, EPA requests 

comment on possible approaches to resolve this issue. 

V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Category

This section summarizes the requirements for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing source category proposed in today’s 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 150 of 444 Formatted: Normal

action. Section VI of this preamble provides our rationale for 

the proposed requirements.

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

Today’s proposed rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

applies to clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are 

located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category includes those 

facilities that manufacture pressed floor tile, pressed wall 

tile and other pressed tile; or sanitaryware (toilets and 

sinks).

B. What are the affected sources?

The affected sources, which are the portions of each source 

in the category for which we are setting standards, are: (1) 

each ceramic tile roller kiln; (2) each floor tile press dryer;

(3) each ceramic tile spray dryer; (4) each ceramic tile glaze 

line using glaze spraying; (5) each sanitaryware tunnel kiln; 

(6) each sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and (7) each sanitaryware 

glaze spray booth.

The following clay ceramics process units are not subject 

to the requirements of today’s proposed rule: (1) kilns that are 

used exclusively for refiring or setting glazes on previously 

fired products; (2) glaze spray operations that use wet glazes 

containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis); 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 151 of 444 Formatted: Normal

(3) wall tile press dryers; and (4) sanitaryware ware dryers.

See section VI.A for information on why these sources are not 

subject to the proposed rule.

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule applies to 

owners or operators of an affected source at a major source 

meeting the requirements discussed previously in this preamble. 

A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 

group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and 

under common control that emits or has the potential to emit,

considering controls, 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or 

more of any combination of HAP.

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

1. Emission Limitations

We are proposing emission limits for PM as a surrogate for 

total non-Hg HAP metals for all new and existing ceramic tile 

roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile and 

sanitaryware glazing operations. We are proposing emission 

limits for Hg for all new and existing ceramic tile roller 

kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns. 

We are proposing emission limits for dioxin/furan for all new 

and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 152 of 444 Formatted: Normal

kilns, floor tile press dryers and ceramic tile spray dryers. We 

are also proposing an emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all 

existing and new roller and tunnel kilns at each facility to 

reduce the acid gases HF and HCl. The proposed emission limits 

are presented in Table 9 of this preamble.

Table 9–Proposed Emission Limits for Clay Ceramics Sources

Subcategory

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HClequivalent)a

Hg

(lb/ton)

PMb

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)c

Limits for existing sources

Floor tile roller kilns 140 1.3 E-04 0.18 4.6

Floor tile press dryers -- -- -- 0.19

Floor tile spray dryers -- -- -- 44

Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile spray dryers -- -- -- 0.12

Tile glaze lines -- 1.6 E-04 1.9 --

First-fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

140 1.2 E-04 0.33 1.5

Sanitaryware manual glaze 

application

-- -- 33 --

Sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application

-- -- 12 --

Sanitaryware robot glaze 

application

-- -- 8.8 --

Limits for new sources

Floor tile roller kilns 140 3.9 E-05 0.027 1.5

Floor tile press dryers -- -- -- 0.19

Floor tile spray dryers -- -- -- 0.17

Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile spray dryers -- -- -- 0.12

Tile glaze lines -- 1.6 E-04 0.61 --

First-fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

140 1.2 E-04 0.095 0.37

Sanitaryware manual glaze 

application

-- -- 3.8 --

Sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application

-- -- 3.2 --
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 153 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Subcategory

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HClequivalent)aHg

(lb/ton)

PMb

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)c

Sanitaryware robot glaze 

application

-- -- 2.2 --

a Limit applies to all kilns at facility. b PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. c ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.

2. Work Practice Standards

We are proposing work practice standards in lieu of 

emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP 

metals for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The work practice 

standards would require using natural gas (or equivalent) as 

kiln fuel except during periods of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption; developing and using a designed firing time 

and temperature cycle for each product produced in the shuttle 

kiln; labeling each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) 

that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle;

documenting the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each load 

to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load;

developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln 

that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and 

developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, 

including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance 

procedures of the shuttle kilns.

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 154 of 444 Formatted: Normal

The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section 

II.B of this preamble. Standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown are discussed in this section.

We are proposing work practice standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile 

press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be 

required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by 

the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In 

addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the 

kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the 

exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the 

owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the 

kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

below 300 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the 

APCD. When the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, 

the owner or operator would be required to comply with the 

applicable continuous compliance requirements described in 

section V.G of this preamble.

We are also proposing work practice standards for periods 

of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 155 of 444 Formatted: Normal

tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no ceramics or other 

product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or 

dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no 

ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer

once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. When 

there are ceramics in the kiln or dryer, the owner or operator

would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the emissions 

limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble).

We are not proposing alternate standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected 

to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as 

described in section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the 

source is operating, including periods of startup and shutdown.

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

We are proposing that owners or operators of all affected 

sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial 

performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate 

initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A 

performance test would need to be conducted before renewing the 

facility’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 156 of 444 Formatted: Normal

years following the initial performance test, as well as when an 

operating limit parameter value is being revised.

Under today’s proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, 

the owner or operator would need to measure emissions of HF, 

HCl, Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and

dioxins/furans. The owner or operator would measure HF and HCl 

from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first-fire 

tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 

Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic 

Method,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8;

• EPA Method 26, “Determination of Hydrogen Chloride 

Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8, when no acid particulate (e.g., HF or HCl 

dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled 

by a wet scrubber) is present;

• EPA Method 320, “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and 

Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR” 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A, provided the test follows the analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless the owner or 

operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking 

procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

Following the performance test, the owner or operator would 

calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using proposed 

Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(i). If there are multiple 

kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would sum the HClequivalent for each kiln using proposed Equation 5 in 40 CFR 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 157 of 444 Formatted: Normal

63.8595(f)(4)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent and 

compare this value to the proposed limitation.

We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM 

emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware firstfire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 5, “Determination of Particulate Emissions from 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;

• EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals Emissions From 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, where 

the test results would report the weight of the PM on the 

filter as PM filterable; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

Method 29 or any other approved alternative method may also 

be used to measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns, 

ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel 

kilns.

We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM 

emissions from ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze spray booths 

using EPA Method 5 or any other alternative method that has been 

approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the 

General Provisions.

We are also proposing that the owner or operator measure 

dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray 

dryers, floor tile press dryers and sanitaryware first-fire 

tunnel kilns using EPA Method 23, “Determination of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 158 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated 

Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-7 or any other alternative method that has been approved by 

the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance 

requirements that are being proposed. Prior to the initial 

performance test, the owner or operator would need to install 

the CPMS equipment to be used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, 

the owner or operator would use the CPMS to establish sitespecific operating parameter values that represent the operating 

limits.

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the 

APCD is free-flowing at all times during the HF/HCl performance 

test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired 

product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate 

varies, the owner or operator would be required to determine the 

average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the 

three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific feed rate 

operating limit. If there are different average feed rate values 

during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 159 of 444 Formatted: Normal

values becomes the site-specific operating limit. If a BLD

system is present, the owner or operator would need to submit 

analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance 

with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.

For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or 

DLS) and a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator submit analyses and supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications 

for BLD systems.

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during 

the PM performance test, the scrubber liquid pH and the chemical 

addition rate (if applicable) during the HF/HCl performance test

and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM and HF/HCl 

performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or 

operator would need to determine and record the average values 

for the three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The 

average of the three test runs establishes the minimum sitespecific pressure drop, liquid pH, liquid flow rate and chemical 

addition rate operating limits. If different average wet 

scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM and 

HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average values become the sitespecific operating limits.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 160 of 444 Formatted: Normal

For an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg 

and dioxin/furan performance tests and determine the 3-hour 

block average flow rate. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the minimum site-specific activated carbon flow rate 

operating limit. If different average activated carbon flow rate 

values are measured during the Hg and dioxin/furan tests, the 

highest of the average values becomes the site-specific 

operating limit.

If the owner or operator intends to comply with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator measure the operating 

temperature of the process (tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile 

spray dryer, floor tile press dryer) during the dioxin/furan 

performance test and determine the 3-hour block average 

operating temperature. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the site-specific operating limit.

For sources with no APCD installed, we are proposing that 

the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HClequivalent using proposed Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8595(g)(1)(i). 

The owner or operator would use the results from the performance 

test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process 

rate. For example, if the design capacity of the tunnel or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 161 of 444 Formatted: Normal

roller kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the

performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 

percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are

multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would need 

to sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent for each kiln to get 

the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent and compare 

this value to the proposed health-based emission limitation for 

acid gases. If the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent is greater than the proposed limitation, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator determine the maximum 

process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. If there 

are multiple kilns, the owner or operator would need to 

determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that 

would result in a total facility maximum potential HClequivalent that remains at or below the proposed limitation. The 

maximum process rate(s) would become the operating limit(s) for 

process rate. We are also proposing that the owner or operator

measure the operating temperature of a source during the 

dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3-hour block 

average operating temperature. The average of the three test 

runs establishes the site-specific operating limit for 

temperature.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 162 of 444 Formatted: Normal

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

Today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule proposes that the 

owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator would 

have to follow the requirements in the OM&M plan and document 

conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would need

to operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters 

established during the initial performance test as described in 

the following paragraphs. The CPMS would have to collect data at 

least every 15 minutes, including at least three of four equally 

spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more 

than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of 

data. The owner or operator would have to operate the CPMS at 

all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator

would also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS, 

including inspections, calibrations and validation checks, and 

maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of 

the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator

would need to calculate and record the 3-hour block average 

values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average for 

each 3-hour averaging period, the owner or operator would need 

to have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that 

period.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 163 of 444 Formatted: Normal

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) 

health-based emission limit by maintaining free-flowing lime in 

the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is 

found not to be free flowing via the output of a load cell, 

carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop 

measurement system or other system, the owner or operator would 

have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions 

according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also 

have to maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired 

product basis) at or above the level established during the

performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift.

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the proposed rule would provide the 

option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit.

For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a 

BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also need to operate 

and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more 

than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction, 

if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 164 of 444 Formatted: Normal

is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is 

required, each alarm must be counted as a minimum of 1 hour and

if corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an 

alarm, the alarm time must be counted as the actual amount of 

time taken to initiate corrective action.

For the option of monitoring VE, we are proposing that the 

owner or operator perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in 

accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, “Visual 

Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and 

Smoke Emissions from Flares,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

During the VE observations, the source would need to be 

operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner 

or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete 

corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are 

observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner 

or operator may decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing 

from daily to weekly for that source. If VE are observed during 

any weekly test, the owner or operator would have to promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M 

plan and the owner or operator would need to resume EPA Method 

22 testing of that source on a daily basis until no VE are 

observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 165 of 444 Formatted: Normal

or operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 

testing to a weekly basis.

For a stand-alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to 

demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit.

For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for 

scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow 

rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the 

minimum values established during the applicable performance 

test. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber pressure 

drop at or above the minimum value established during the PM 

performance test would demonstrate compliance with the PM 

emission limit. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for 

scrubber liquid pH and chemical (e.g., lime, caustic) addition 

rate at or above the minimum values established during the 

HF/HCl performance test would demonstrate compliance with the 

acid gas (HF/HCl) health-based emission limit. Maintaining the 

3-hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above 

the lowest minimum value established during the PM and HF/HCl 

performance tests would demonstrate compliance with all 

applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in 

proper working order.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 166 of 444 Formatted: Normal

For an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner or 

operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/furan 

emission limits by continuously monitoring the activated carbon 

flow rate and maintaining it at or above the lowest minimum 

value established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance 

tests.

If the owner or operator intends to comply with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance by 

continuously monitoring the operating temperature of the process

(tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile 

press dryer) and maintaining it at or above the average 

operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test 

for the tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer and 

at or below the average operating temperature during the 

dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer.

For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with 

the PM emission limit by conducting a daily inspection to verify 

the presence of water flow to the wet control system, conducting

weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control 

equipment for leaks and conducting annual inspections of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 167 of 444 Formatted: Normal

interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine 

the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment.

For baffles on a spray glazing operation, we are proposing 

that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM 

emission limit by conducting an annual visual inspection of the 

baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.

For a source with no APCD, we are proposing that, to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit, the owner or 

operator monitor VE as described above; and, to demonstrate 

compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner or 

operator continuously monitor the operating temperature,

determine and record 3-hour block averages and maintain the 3-

hour block averages at or above the average operating 

temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the

tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer and at or 

below the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan

performance test for the floor tile press dryer. In addition, if 

the last calculated total facility maximum potential HClequivalent was not at or below the proposed health-based 

emission limitation for acid gases, then we are proposing that 

the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the 

process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce the data to 

3-hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 168 of 444 Formatted: Normal

maintain the kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln process 

rate operating limit(s) that would enable the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent to remain at or below the 

proposed limitation.

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

All new and existing sources would be required to comply 

with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 

63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 9 of subpart 

KKKKK. The General Provisions include specific requirements for 

notifications, recordkeeping and reporting.

Each owner or operator would be required to submit a 

notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 

63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed Clay Ceramics

manufacturing rule would require the owner or operator to 

include in the notification of compliance status report 

certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual 

compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart 

A, would also be required for each semiannual reporting period.

This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would 

require records to demonstrate compliance with each emission 

limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 169 of 444 Formatted: Normal

requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 

40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK.

Specifically, we are proposing that the owner or operator

must keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

• Records of performance tests.

• Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

• Continuous monitoring data as required in this proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

• Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.

• Each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet 

each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating 

limits).

• Records of production rates.

• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing 

procedures.

• Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

• Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting 

conformance.

• Logs of the information required to document compliance 

with the shuttle kiln work practice standard.

• Logs of the information required to document compliance 

with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.

• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action 

taken.

We are also proposing to require that the owner or operator

submit the following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.

• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after 

the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.

• Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or 

other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 170 of 444 Formatted: Normal

before the performance test and/or other compliance 

demonstration is scheduled.

• Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days 

following completion of a compliance demonstration that 

includes a performance test.

• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days

following completion of a compliance demonstration that 

does not include a performance test (i.e., compliance 

demonstration for the work practice standard).

• Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of 

each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the 

corrective action taken.

• Report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after 

terminating use of the alternative fuel.

• Results of each performance test within 60 days of 

completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided 

software for data collected using supported test methods.

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

The ERT provisions being proposed for clay ceramics 

manufacturing are the same as those being proposed for BSCP 

manufacturing. The ERT provisions for BSCP manufacturing are 

discussed in section III.I of this preamble.

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

Based on our review of the available information on the 

clay ceramics manufacturing industry, we determined that there 

are three distinct sectors within the industry: (1) ceramic 

floor tile; (2) ceramic wall tile; and (3) sanitaryware. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 171 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Specifically, we found that the ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall 

tile and sanitaryware sectors of the industry differ in terms of 

raw materials, processes and final products.

The primary raw materials used for manufacturing 

sanitaryware are ball clay, other clays, feldspar and silica, 

whereas ceramic tile is made primarily from ball clay, talc, 

nepheline syenite (an igneous rock comprised of nepheline, 

microcline and albite), fire clay and shale. However, while the 

raw materials are similar for ceramic floor and wall tile, the 

mix for ceramic wall tile includes more talc and less ball clay, 

resulting in a lighter-weight mix. Regarding processes, ceramic 

floor tile facilities use spray dryers to process the ceramic 

mix into a powder to allow tile pressing, followed by press 

dryers to press the tiles. The tile is then glazed prior to 

firing in a roller kiln. Ceramic wall tile facilities also use 

spray and press dryers, but they are designed, managed and

operated to handle the lighter weight raw material mix. Ceramic 

wall tile is produced in a two-step firing process using roller 

kilns and it is glazed in between firings. On the other hand, 

sanitaryware facilities use tunnel kilns to fire the ceramic 

ware and they glaze the ware before firing, predominantly using 

glaze spraying.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 172 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall tile and sanitaryware also 

have different characteristics as finished products and compete 

in different markets. Ceramic floor tile is defined as a 

vitreous product with a low water absorption rate. Floor tile is 

known for its multi-color, variably-textured, and slip-resistant 

characteristics, which are not acceptable in most wall tiles.

Ceramic wall tile is defined as a non-vitreous product required 

to meet a water absorption rate of 7 to 20 percent, much higher 

than that required for floor tile. Wall tile has much more 

stringent appearance requirements compared to floor tile, with 

the market demanding that most wall tile be mono-color, with a 

high gloss or smooth matte finish (requiring a two-step firing 

process). Sanitaryware is vitreous ceramic ware of zero or low 

absorption after firing that is used for plumbing and bathroom 

fixtures and accessories (such as toilets and ceramic sinks).

In the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, the foremost 

sources of HAP emissions are first-fire tunnel and periodic 

(shuttle) kilns at sanitaryware facilities and roller kilns at 

ceramic tile facilities. Based on emissions testing, the HAP 

emitted from first-fire tunnel kilns and roller kilns include 

HF, HCl, Hg, other non-Hg HAP metals and dioxins/furans. Shuttle 

kilns are also assumed to emit these pollutants based on 

similarities in raw materials used in shuttle kilns and first-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 173 of 444 Formatted: Normal

fire tunnel kilns. Other sources of HAP emissions at clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities are glaze lines that employ 

glaze spraying at ceramic tile facilities, glaze spray booths at 

sanitaryware facilities, spray dryers at ceramic tile facilities

and press dryers at floor tile facilities. The HAP emitted from 

ceramic tile glaze lines include Hg and non-Hg HAP metals, the 

HAP emitted from sanitaryware glazing operations include non-Hg 

HAP metals and the HAP emitted from ceramic tile spray dryers 

and press dryers are dioxins/furans. Other process units at clay 

ceramics facilities (e.g., raw material processing and handling, 

wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware dryers) have not 

been found to emit measurable quantities of HAP.54 For this 

reason, the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule covers 

those existing and new first-fire kilns, glaze spray operations, 

spray dryers and press dryers at major source clay ceramics

manufacturing facilities that emit HAP and meet the 

applicability criteria.

Additional clay ceramics process units that do not meet the 

applicability criteria include (1) kilns that are used 

exclusively for refiring or setting glazes on previously fired 

products; (2) glaze spray operations that use wet glazes 

 54 As part of the 2010 EPA survey, wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware 

ware dryers were tested for dioxins/furans, but none of the tests found 

detectable levels of dioxins/furans.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 174 of 444 Formatted: Normal

containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis); 

and (3) glazing operations using a flow (curtain) coating or 

waterfall method.

Re-fire kilns are used for firing products that have 

already been fired but have minor defects, which are 

subsequently repaired. Nearly all of the emissions from the 

firing of a clay body (i.e., fluorides, chlorides) are released 

during the initial vitrification step conducted in first-fire 

kilns, while re-fire ware has already been vitrified and emits 

little to no fluorides or chlorides. Kilns that are used 

exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products also 

emit little to no HF or HCl for similar reasons. Glaze spray 

operations using glaze containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent 

metal HAP are expected to be an insignificant source of HAP 

emissions. Glaze applied using a flow (curtain) coating or 

waterfall method rather than using an aerosol spraying method 

would have little to no air emissions of non-Hg HAP metals.

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

For Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals)

emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and first-fire 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule includes numerical emission rate limits as a 

mass of pollutant emitted per ton of product produced. For non-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 175 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Hg HAP metals emissions from ceramic tile glaze lines and 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths, this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule includes numerical emission rate limits for 

PM as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of glaze sprayed. For 

Hg emissions from ceramic tile glaze lines, this proposed rule 

includes numerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant 

emitted per ton of glaze sprayed. For dioxin/furan emissions 

from ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic 

tile spray dryers and first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this 

proposed rule includes numerical emission limits in units of 

concentration. The selection of numerical emission rate limits 

and numerical emission limits as the format for this proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule provides flexibility for the 

regulated community by allowing a regulated source to choose any 

control technology or technique to meet the emission limits, 

rather than requiring each unit to use a prescribed control 

method that may not be appropriate in each case. In addition, 

the selection of numerical emission rate limits as a mass of 

pollutant emitted per ton of product produced ensures that 

differences in the size or process rate of the affected source

do not affect the level of emissions control achieved.

The PM limits are proposed as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals. The same control techniques that would be used to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 176 of 444 Formatted: Normal

control PM will control non-Hg HAP metals. Particulate matter 

was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific 

individual HAP metals because all sources do not emit the same 

type and amount of non-Hg HAP metals due to differences in raw 

materials and glaze formulations. However, most sources 

generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of 

HAP metals. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the 

cost of performance testing to comply with numerous standards 

for individual non-Hg HAP metals.

For acid gases (HF and HCl), this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule includes a health-based emission limit as a 

mass of HCl-equivalent emitted per hour. Further discussion 

about the development of health-based standards for the proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is provided in section VI.J of 

this preamble.

This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes 

work practices for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. As described in 

more detail in section VI.K.1 of this preamble, technological 

and economic limitations make it impracticable to measure 

compliance with numerical emission limits for sanitaryware 

shuttle kilns.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 177 of 444 Formatted: Normal

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate 

emission standards for either categories or subcategories of 

sources. Through subcategorization, the EPA may distinguish 

among classes, types and sizes of sources within a category.

1. Sanitaryware Kilns

Upon initial consideration of the available information on 

the sanitaryware sector of the clay ceramics manufacturing 

industry, we determined that separate subcategories for 

sanitaryware periodic (shuttle) kilns and sanitaryware 

continuous (tunnel) kilns were warranted because shuttle kilns 

are smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an 

hourly basis and accounting for only a small percentage of 

production) and are operated in batch cycles, whereas tunnel 

kilns operate continuously.

As noted in section VI.K.1 of this preamble, we have 

determined that it is technologically and economically 

infeasible to test shuttle kilns, thereby ruling out a 

quantitative analysis of how these differences impact emissions. 

However, a qualitative comparison can be made, in that smaller 

kilns operated periodically (i.e., shuttle kilns) would be 

expected to have lower emissions over time compared to the 

larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 178 of 444 Formatted: Normal

2. Sanitaryware Glazing

We also determined that separate subcategories for three 

different glaze application methods for sanitaryware were 

warranted. Manual glaze spraying is done by a human operator 

with one spray gun per station per booth. The ware are moved and 

set up manually and glaze is applied to one to two pieces at a 

time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of 

glaze spraying are the highest of the application methods. Spray 

machine, or chain-on-edge, glaze application is done by 

automatic reciprocating spray guns from a fixed location with 10

to 20 spray guns per booth. The ware are moved and set up on a 

“chain-on-edge” conveyor system and glaze is applied to six to 

seven pieces at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed 

for this type of glaze spraying are the second highest of the 

application methods. Robot glaze spraying is done by an 

automatic robot arm with one spray gun per booth. The ware are 

moved and set up manually and glaze is applied to one piece at a 

time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of 

glaze spraying are the lowest of the application methods.

We also examined subcategorization by manual spraying and 

non-manual spraying (where “non-manual spraying” would include 

both spray machine and robot glaze spraying), but we determined 

that the design and emission differences between spray machine 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 179 of 444 Formatted: Normal

and robot glaze spraying are significant enough to warrant 

separate subcategories.

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

As noted in section IV.D of this preamble, all standards 

for new and existing sources established pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(2) must reflect MACT. The remainder of this section 

describes the development of the pool of data used to calculate 

the MACT floors for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals) and dioxins/furans. As noted in section VI.J of this 

preamble, health-based emissions standards are being proposed 

for the acid gases HF and HCl under the provisions of CAA 

section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not prepared a MACT 

floor analysis for these pollutants.

In our MACT floor analyses for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for 

non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans, we separated the data by 

industry sector, source type and subcategory as described in 

section VI.C of this preamble (if applicable). Within each of 

those categories or subcategories, we ranked the data in terms 

of lb/ton for PM and Hg and in terms of nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 7 percent O2 for dioxins/furans 

(as described in section VI.E of this preamble). Because there 

are less than 30 sources in each subcategory, we identified the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 180 of 444 Formatted: Normal

top five (best performing) sources for which we had data. For 

subcategories with less than five sources, we considered all 

sources for which we had data as best performing sources. Once 

we identified the best performing sources, we then calculated 

the MACT floor in units of lb/ton or ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 (as 

applicable) as described in section VI.E of this preamble.

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

The EPA must consider available emissions information to 

determine the MACT floors. For Hg, PM (as a surrogate for total 

non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans, we calculated the MACT 

floor for a subcategory of sources by ranking all the available 

emissions data for units within the subcategory with the best 

performing sources ranked at the top, as described later in this 

section and then using the test results from the best performing

sources (up to five). Therefore, as discussed in section VI.D of 

this preamble, the MACT floor limits for Hg, PM (as a surrogate 

for total non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans were calculated 

based on the performance of the best performing sources in each 

of the subcategories.

The best performing sources were determined by ranking each 

source’s average emission value from lowest to highest. We then 

determined the data distribution of the dataset made up of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 181 of 444 Formatted: Normal

top five best performers using kurtosis and skewness, as 

described in section IV.E of this preamble. We assessed 

variability of the best performers by calculating a UPL using 

the appropriate equation based on the data distribution. The UPL 

takes into consideration the average performance of the unit and 

the variability of the test runs during the testing conditions. 

As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the UPL 

represents the value which one can expect the mean of a 

specified number of future observations (e.g., 3-run average) to 

fall below for the specified level of confidence, based upon the 

results of an independent sample from the same population. It is 

a standard statistical methodology used to account for 

variability.

A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, 

including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of 

kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

We also compared the appropriate 3xRDL value to the 

calculated UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory. As 

described in section IV.E of this preamble, we used the greater 

of the 3xRDL value and calculated UPL value to ensure that 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 182 of 444 Formatted: Normal

measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT 

floor emissions limit. This check was part of the variability 

analysis for all existing MACT floors that had BDL or DLL run 

data present in the best performing datasets (see the technical 

memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290).

As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in 

setting floors, not only because variability is an element of 

performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best 

performance over time. We believe this approach reasonably 

ensures that the emission limits selected as the MACT floors 

adequately represent the level of emissions actually achieved by 

the average of the best performing units, considering 

operational variability of those units. Both the analysis of the 

measured emissions from units representative of the best 

performers and the variability analysis are reasonably designed 

to provide a meaningful estimate of the average performance or

central tendency, of the best performing five units in a given 

subcategory. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology 

is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 183 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Table 10 of this preamble presents the average emission 

level of the best performing sources and the existing source 

MACT floor. Each subcategory had less than 30 sources 

nationwide; thus, the top five sources were used in the MACT 

floor. If we had data for less than five sources, we used all 

the data available. The existing source MACT floors are based on 

the UPL unless otherwise noted.

Table 10—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics 

Existing Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter

Hgb

(lb/ton)

PMb,c

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)

Floor tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of best performing

sources

7.8 E-05 0.054 2.9

MACT floor 1.3 E-04 0.18 4.6

Floor tile 

press dryers

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- -- 0.078 

MACT floor -- -- 0.19d

Floor tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- -- 0.96 

MACT floor -- -- 44

Wall tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of best performing

sources

5.0 E-05 0.071 0.065

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- -- 0.053

MACT floor -- -- 0.12d

Tile glaze 

lines

Avg. of best performing

sources

2.0 E-05 0.67 --

MACT floor 1.6 E-04d 1.9 --

First-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

Avg. of best performing

sources

1.6 E-04 0.12 0.81

MACT floor 2.6 E-04 0.33 1.5

Sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- 14 --

MACT floor -- 33 --
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 184 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Subcategory Parameter

Hgb

(lb/ton)

PMb,c

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)

Sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- 5.9 --

MACT floor -- 12 --

Sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- 4.4 --

MACT floor -- 8.8 --

a The existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton 

glaze sprayed.

c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

The approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for 

new sources is described in section IV.F of this preamble. This 

approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit selected as 

the MACT floor adequately represents the average level of 

control actually achieved in practice by the best controlled 

similar source, considering ordinary operational variability. A 

detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

Table 11 of this preamble presents, for each subcategory 

and pollutant, the average emission level of the best performing

similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 185 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Table 11—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics New 

Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter

Hgb

(lb/ton)

PMb,c

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)

Floor tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of top performer 3.5 E-05 0.020 1.1

MACT floor 3.9 E-05 0.027 1.5

Floor tile 

press dryers

Avg. of top performer -- -- 0.070

MACT floor -- -- 0.19d

Floor tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of top performer -- -- 0.010

MACT floor -- -- 0.17d

Wall tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of top performer 5.0 E-05 0.071 0.065

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of top performer -- -- 0.053

MACT floor -- -- 0.12d

Tile glaze 

lines

Avg. of top performer 7.4 E-06 0.15 --

MACT floor 1.6 E-04d 0.61 --

First-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

Avg. of top performer 6.4 E-05 0.092 0.23

MACT floor 1.2 E-04 0.095 0.37

Sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

Avg. of top performer -- 3.3 --

MACT floor -- 3.8 --

Sanitaryware 

spray 

machine 

glaze 

application

Avg. of top performer -- 2.0 --

MACT floor -- 3.2 --

Sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

Avg. of top performer -- 1.3 --

MACT floor -- 2.2 --

a The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton 

glaze sprayed.

c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, there are 

specific considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 186 of 444 Formatted: Normal

the clay ceramics source category, we have limited datasets for 

the following pollutants and subcategories: 

• Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new floor tile roller kilns;

• dioxins/furans for new floor tile press dryers;

• dioxins/furans for new floor tile spray dryers;

• Hg and dioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile roller 

kilns;

• dioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile spray dryers;

• Hg and PM for new tile glaze lines;

• Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns; and

• PM for new sanitaryware manual, spray machine, and robot 

glaze spray booths.

For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the 

memorandum titled “Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction 

Limit to Limited Datasets,” which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; see that memorandum for more information 

on the analysis and the results.

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing

sources?

As discussed in sections II.A and VI.D of this preamble, 

the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements 

that are more stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-thefloor control options). When considering beyond-the-floor 

options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, 

energy and non-air quality health and environmental impacts when 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 187 of 444 Formatted: Normal

doing so. Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for 

each subcategory, we considered various regulatory options more 

stringent than the MACT floor level of control (e.g., the 

performance of technologies that could result in lower 

emissions) for the different subcategories.

We considered requiring each subcategory of existing 

sources to meet the new source MACT floors developed as 

described in section VI.F of this preamble. We analyzed the 

beyond-the-floor options for each pollutant separately for each 

subcategory of existing sources. Our analyses are documented in 

the technical memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission 

Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP” in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and summarized in the following paragraphs.

For Hg from existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns, based on 

the data available, we estimate that all existing tunnel kilns 

could meet the new source MACT floor emission limits described 

in section VI.F of this preamble without incurring additional 

emission control costs. Therefore, we are proposing a beyondthe-floor Hg limit for existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns 

equivalent to the new source MACT floor.

For several sources and pollutants, the existing source 

MACT floor and the new source MACT floor are the same value, 

usually because there is only one source with data in the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 188 of 444 Formatted: Normal

subcategory or because both floors are based on the 3xRDL value. 

These sources/pollutants include dioxins/furans from floor tile 

press dryers, PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals), 

Hg and dioxins/furans from wall tile roller kilns, 

dioxins/furans from wall tile spray dryers and Hg from ceramic 

tile glaze lines. Therefore, we are not proposing beyond-thefloor limits for these sources and pollutants.

The incremental costs, emission reductions and cost 

effectiveness for all other beyond-the-floor options are 

summarized by subcategory and by pollutant in Table 12 of this 

preamble. In all these cases, we have concluded that the 

incremental costs of additional control above the MACT floor 

emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of 

emission reduction achieved. Therefore, we are not proposing to 

go beyond-the-floor for any of the subcategory/pollutant 

concentrations included in Table 12 of this preamble.

Table 12-Summary of Costs, Emissions Reductions and Cost 

Effectiveness for Selected Clay Ceramics Beyond-the-Floor 

Options (2011 dollars)

Subcategory Pollutant

Cost (million) Incremental 

HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tpy)

Cost Effectiveness 

Capital Annual ($/ton total HAP)

Floor tile 

roller kilns

Hg $4.14 $3.16 0.044 $71,800,000

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$10.8 $4.28 0.73 $5,830,000
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 189 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Subcategory Pollutant

Cost (million) Incremental 

HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tpy)

Cost Effectiveness 

Capital Annual ($/ton total HAP)

Dioxins/ 

furans

$2.32 $1.77 8.5 E-07 $2,080,000,000,000

Floor tile 

spray dryers

Dioxins/ 

furans

$0.335 $0.278 4.6 E-08 $5,990,000,000,000

Tile glaze 

lines

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$7.67 $2.70 0.038 $70,600,000

First-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$3.91 $2.01 0.020 $102,000,000

Dioxins/ 

furans

$2.98 $1.78 3.4 E-08 $51,700,000,000,00

0

Sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$6.78 $2.19 0.24 $9,090,000

Sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$1.89 $0.900 0.14 $6,420,000

Sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$4.97 $2.22 0.097 $23,000,000

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

The MACT floor level of control for each subcategory of new 

sources for each pollutant was based on the emission control 

that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar 

source within each of the subcategories. When we establish a 

beyond-the-floor standard, we typically identify control 

techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit 

more stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were 

identified that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 190 of 444 Formatted: Normal

new source floors for any of the subcategories for each 

pollutant. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a beyond-thefloor limit for any of the new sources in this proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule.

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

In developing the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule, we considered whether it was appropriate to establish 

health-based emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for 

the acid gases HF and HCl. The rationale for the development of 

health-based standards for the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule is the same as that presented for the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, with a few exceptions, which 

are discussed in the sections below. The rationale for the 

development of health-based standards for the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule is discussed in section IV.J of this 

preamble.

1. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its 

discretion whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard?

Section IV.J of this preamble discusses the following 

factors that the EPA considers in making a judgment whether to 

set a standard based on the health threshold or the traditional 

MACT process:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 191 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• The availability of data to set the health-based standard;

• Co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, 

such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or 

criteria pollutants;

• The potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the 

pollutant; and

• The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to 

concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with 

similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other 

source categories, where the concentration of the threshold 

pollutant emitted from the given source category is below 

the threshold.

The evaluation of the first three factors (availability of 

data, co-benefits and potential ecosystem impacts) are nearly 

identical for both the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. 

However, further analysis was required concerning the last 

factor (potential for cumulative adverse health effects). The 

evaluation of all four factors for the clay ceramics industry is 

provided below.

a. Availability of Data to Determine Standard

Like the BSCP manufacturing rule, because of the relatively 

small number of facilities compared to other rules such as the 

Boiler MACT proposal, the EPA was able to determine facilityspecific information for the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, 

including tunnel and roller kiln locations and operating 

characteristics and stack parameters, available for all clay 

ceramics facilities to assess the feasibility of health-based 

standards in this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 192 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Such information enabled us to conduct the dispersion modeling 

necessary to establish a health-based emission limit for acid 

gases.55

Consequently, we have concluded that we have enough 

information to determine the health-based emission standards for 

the acid gases HF and HCl for the clay ceramics industry. As 

discussed in further detail below, these limits have been 

developed to ensure that exposure is below the health threshold 

for each facility and also ensure that acute exposures will not 

pose any health concerns.56

b. Co-benefits

The additional nationwide SO2 reductions that would be 

attributable to Clay Ceramics MACT standards for acid gases are 

estimated to be 31 tpy in the third year following promulgation 

of the proposed standards. Similar to BSCP, this reduction is 

substantially lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for 

other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a 

 55 For more information, see the technical memorandum “Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290. 56 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 (September 9, 

2010) (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short-term emissions of 

HCl from cement kilns which might allow us to determine whether a chronic 

health-based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will 

not pose health concerns.”)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 193 of 444 Formatted: Normal

health-based limit,57 and it would not be expected to provide a 

significant public health benefit in the circumstances here.

c. Ecosystem Impacts

For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the 

acid gases HCl and HF around each clay ceramics facility. For 

HCl, the environmental risk screen indicated that the areaweighted average modeled concentrations of HCl around each 

facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the 

ecological benchmark. In addition, the ecological benchmark was 

not exceeded at any offsite receptor location for any facility.

 57 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970 (September 9, 2010) –

Co-benefits was identified as the “decisive factor” in the Portland Cement 

NESHAP Final Rule. 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. There, EPA declined to set a healthbased standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other 

HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO2 and other HAP 

gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO2 alone 

attributable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons 

per year” and discussing both direct SO2 effects and effects of SO2 as a 

precursor to PM2.5) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl2), 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride (HF))] are also controlled 

during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet 

scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when 

considering a health-based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT 

Final Rule, 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this 

issue and continues to believe that the co-benefits are significant and 

provide an additional basis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not 

appropriate to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler 

MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010) – Co-benefits from MACT 

standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 

340,000 tons per year of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP 

acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and mercury. See also MATS Proposed Rule, 76 FR 

24976, 25051/1 – Co-benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate 

for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO2 and 

unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and 

mercury.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 194 of 444 Formatted: Normal

For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 

area-weighted average modeled concentrations of HF around each 

facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the 

ecological benchmarks. There were multiple facilities with 

modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that 

exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the 

value was exceeded was no greater than one percent of the 

offsite modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there 

would not be any significant or widespread environmental 

effects.

d. Cumulative Effects

As noted previously, the EPA may consider the availability

of information on emissions from co-located and nearby sources 

and consider if it is feasible to determine the potential 

cumulative health effects from emissions from the sources in the 

category when combined with other emissions from other sources 

that are co-located or located nearby. Relevant emissions may 

include both emissions of the same pollutant and emissions of 

other pollutants that may cause cumulative effects.

Through industry responses to the clay ceramics 2008 EPA 

survey and the 2010 EPA survey, we have substantial information 

on the locations of clay ceramics plants and the levels of HF 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 195 of 444 Formatted: Normal

and HCl emitted from those plants. While the major source 

ceramic tile plants are not co-located with any other type of 

operation, the three major source sanitaryware plants are. 

However, the sources co-located with the sanitaryware plants do 

not emit acid gases. The metal foundry plant co-located with the 

sanitaryware plant in Kohler, Wisconsin emits chiefly 

particulates and metals, while the fiberglass plants co-located 

with the sanitaryware plants in Spartanburg, South Carolina and 

Brownwood, Texas emit chiefly organic HAP (styrene). 

Consequently, any acid gas emissions from co-located sources are 

not expected to impact the total facility acid gas emissions 

significantly.

Like BSCP facilities, clay ceramics facilities are 

typically located on large tracts of land needed for all of the 

processes involved in clay ceramics manufacturing, including raw 

material receiving, storage and processing; glaze preparation; 

forming; drying; glazing; firing; product inspection; and 

packaging. This provides an additional buffer between the clay 

ceramics plants and the surrounding area. Because of the 

relatively low plume heights, maximum risks from the clay 

ceramics plants are located close to the facility property line. 

In trying to define cumulative risks from nearby non-clay 

ceramics emissions, the location and emissions associated with 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 196 of 444 Formatted: Normal

other sources not in the clay ceramics source category are far 

less certain. While the 2008 EPA survey and the 2010 EPA survey

data for clay ceramics facilities have been reviewed by EPA 

engineers and scientists, the emissions levels and locations of 

nearby other facilities such as those in the NEI have not 

undergone the same level of detailed review. Thus, a 

quantitative analysis of nearby emissions wouldmay contain a 

great dealsignificant of uncertainty. However, as discussed 

above, because of the large footprint of these plantsclay 

ceramic facilities and the clay ceramics risks being confined to 

the near plant locations, we do not expect that the combined 

emissions of HF or HCl from clay ceramics facilities and nearby 

other sources would result in substantial cumulative health and 

environmental effects.

2. How did the EPA set the level of the standard?

As with BSCP, the EPA is proposing to exercise its 

discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is 

consistent with the EPA’s prior decisions where we found it 

appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the 

authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, because the 

circumstances in this case differ from those previous 

considerations. We request comment on the analysis and 

conclusions regarding setting health-based standards.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 197 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Following from the EPA’s determination that a health-based 

standard is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health 

effects on which the threshold is based.

• There must be no observable adverse effect.

• The standard must not allow greater adverse environmental 

effects as the MACT standard that would otherwise be 

established.

• A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from 

compliance based on a showing that the source’s emissions 

do not pose a health risk.

As part of the development of the proposed standards, we 

have maintained an inventory of major source facilities, 

including the size and operating hours of each tunnel and roller 

kiln and the geographic location and physical attributes (e.g., 

stack height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each kiln stack. 

To develop a health-based emission limit, both long-term and 

short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks 

from the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category were 

estimated using the HEM-3 model as described in section IV.J.3 

of this preamble. Further information on the overall modeling 

approach is presented in the technical memorandum, “Risk 

Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for 

Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category” 

in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we 

used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 198 of 444 Formatted: Normal

each acid gas emitted by each source in the source category. The 

air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were 

used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 

concentration for all the people who reside in that census 

block. Chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed by 

comparing a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio. 

Because we performed HEM-3 model runs for each acid gas 

individually, we did not aggregate HQ values of different acid 

gases. Of course, multiple acid gas pollutants are emitted at 

clay ceramics facilities, but a 600 tpy level of HCl-equivalent 

emissions (based on the HEM risks modeling) ensures that a TOSHI 

of 1 is not exceeded, as long as the HCl-equivalent emissions do 

not exceed 600 tpy. It is important to note that this emission 

limit is only applicable to the sources in this source category 

and should not be considered for sources other than those 

included in this analysis. Equivalent emissions for HF are 

determined by the ratio of the chronic RfC to that for HCl, such 

that the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF are 420 tpy.

Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic 

dose-response values, the 600 tpy level does not necessarily 

ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the 

HCl model runs, there were no facilities with acute screening HQ 

values exceeding 1. For HF, we estimate that two of the eight 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 199 of 444 Formatted: Normal

facilities examined had an acute value exceed the REL with the 

highest being two. However, no facility exceeded an HQ (AEGL-1) 

value for HF. To assure that no source emits more than the 600 

tpy HCl-equivalent limit in a single hour, we propose setting 

the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 600 tpy (140 

lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions).

It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds 

are developed from back-calculating the emissions that would 

result in an HQ of 1 at the worst-case facility. Potential risks 

at other facilities (not the worst-case facility) are predicted 

to be well below 1.

Because we had site-specific data on the operation of each 

tunnel and roller kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling 

to ensure that: (1) the health-based emission limit cited above 

for clay ceramics facilities provides an ample margin of safety 

and (2) persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not 

experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold is 

based. In addition, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas 

emissions associated with clay ceramics kilns, based on results 

from the EPA’s environmental risk screen methodology outlined 

above, are not expected to have an adverse environmental impact.

Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the healthbased emission limit by determining their facility-wide HCl and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 200 of 444 Formatted: Normal

HF emissions, calculating the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF 

using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the HClequivalent value to calculate the total HCl-equivalent 

emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided 

in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. For more 

information on the development of the health-based standard, see 

the technical memorandum “Risk Assessment to Determine a HealthBased Emissions Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290. For more information on the calculation of an HClequivalent value, see the technical memorandum “Development of 

Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics

NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice 

standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not 

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The EPA 

is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns is not feasible because the 

application of measurement methodology to these sources is not 

practicable due to technological and economic limitations. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing a work practice standard for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 201 of 444 Formatted: Normal

sanitaryware shuttle kilns in lieu of emission limits for acid 

gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP metals. The rationale for 

this work practice standard is discussed in the paragraphs 

below.

1. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of 

Emission Standards

a. Overview

Shuttle kilns at sanitaryware facilities are a type of 

periodic kiln used primarily to refire rejected pieces that have 

been machined and reglazed (although some shuttle kilns are used 

as first-fire units). Shuttle kilns are designed with a 

removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using 

hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress. The main 

advantage of this type of kiln is that it can readily 

accommodate changes in firing temperature profile and cycle time 

to match the requirements of a wide variety of ceramic products. 

The primary disadvantage of this type of kiln is much higher 

energy costs per ton when compared to tunnel kilns and roller 

kilns.58

Shuttle kilns are batch operated, meaning that a batch 

starts cold and ends cold. The sanitaryware industry operates 

 58 See the memorandum titled “Characterization of the Ceramic Manufacturing 

Industry” in the original Clay Ceramics NESHAP docket, incorporated by 

reference into the docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 202 of 444 Formatted: Normal

shuttle kilns on batch cycle times of 18 to 38 hours, with the 

most common cycle times between 22 and 30 hours. As shuttle 

kilns operate through a heating cycle, temperatures are either 

in ramp-up or cool-down mode.59

b. Emissions and Testing

Emission rates can vary over the batch cycle due to the 

temperature cycle of the kiln. In order to accurately determine 

the total emissions from a shuttle kiln cycle, emissions from 

the entire cycle period would need to be tested.60 As with 

testing BSCP periodic kilns, testing sanitaryware shuttle kilns 

for any less time could result in estimated emissions that are 

either higher or lower than actual emissions, depending on when 

during the kiln cycle the emissions are sampled.61

Conducting a shuttle kiln test on even the shortest cycle 

time would require a test crew to be on site for at least 24 

hours and would require the test team to have at least a dozen 

or more sampling train set-ups or additional manpower on site to 

recover samples and turn-around sampling trains for subsequent 

use during the test. It is estimated that the test of a single 

 59 See the email titled “Kohler’s response to EPA question regarding options 

for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) should be addressed,” in the 

docket for this proposed rule.

60 Id. 61 See the memorandum entitled “Rationale for Establishing Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 203 of 444 Formatted: Normal

shuttle kiln firing cycle with analysis would cost $20,000 or 

more (2009 dollars). As with BSCP periodic kilns, sampling a 

single firing cycle might not be adequate for characterizing 

shuttle kiln emissions, due to variations during firing cycles 

and variations across tests. To collect three test runs of data, 

two additional cycles would need to be tested, bringing the cost 

to $60,000 or more (2009 dollars) to test a single shuttle kiln.

Furthermore, the sanitaryware facilities covered under this 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule have three or more 

shuttle kilns each, requiring additional tests at each 

facility.62

c. Test Methods and Costs

As noted in section VI.K.1.a of this preamble, when EPA

Method 26 or 26A is used, breakthrough of HCl can occur if 

emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears 

to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns. Testing of sanitaryware 

shuttle kilns could encounter a similar problem. Another 

disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for testing throughout 

shuttle kiln cycles is the need for additional manpower to 

 62 See the sanitaryware industry communication titled “Kohler’s response to 

EPA question regarding options for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) 

should be addressed,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 204 of 444 Formatted: Normal

operate the sampling trains around the clock and to recover 

samples.63

An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduct the 

tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320, where HCl 

breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides 

near real-time emissions data. However, the cost for FTIR 

testing would be similarly expensive as testing by Method 26 or 

26A throughout an entire cycle. The cost for testing by FTIR is 

estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50-hour kiln 

cycle (the average cycle time for a BSCP periodic kiln). 

Assuming a 50 percent reduction in cost for an average 25-hour 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln cycle, the cost to test one cycle 

would still be substantial (nearly $25,000 (2009 dollars)). If 

it were determined that the variations in emissions from cycle 

to cycle were significant, it might be necessary to test each 

kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a representative 

emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would double the 

testing cost to almost $50,000 and testing for a third cycle 

would triple the cost to almost $75,000 (2009 dollars). In 

addition to these costs, additional costs would be incurred for 

testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would have to be 

 63 See the RTI memorandum titled “Rationale for Establishing Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 205 of 444 Formatted: Normal

tested using a manual test method (e.g., EPA Methods 5 or 17). 

If additional shuttle kilns needed to be tested at each 

facility, the costs would be even higher.64

While no formal cost-to-sales analysis was conducted for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns like the one conducted for BSCP 

periodic kilns (see section IV.K.1 of this preamble), a similar 

informal analysis was performed using the sales and production 

data provided in the 2008 EPA survey responses (claimed as CBI 

by the respondent). Based on this analysis, a similar conclusion 

(that testing is not economically feasible) can be reached.

Because the test costs are similar and shuttle kilns represent a 

small share of total sanitaryware production and revenues, the 

EPA has concluded that it would not be economically feasible to 

require testing for shuttle kilns.

d. Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Shuttle Kilns

CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may 

prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, 

consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in 

those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is 

not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA section 

112(h)(2)(B) further defines the term “not feasible” in this 

context to apply when “the application of measurement technology 

 64 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 206 of 444 Formatted: Normal

to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations.”

Because of the technological and economic limitations 

described above, we conclude that it is not practicable to 

establish numerical emission limits for sanitaryware shuttle 

kilns. Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit 

for shuttle kilns is technologically limited to testing 

procedures that are economically infeasible for the sanitaryware 

industry. Consequently, we are proposing a work practice 

standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns under CAA section 

112(h).

2. Work Practice Standard

The work practice standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns 

proposed in today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes 

the following specific provisions:65

• Each facility would have to use natural gas or equivalent

as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas 

curtailment or supply interruption.

• Each facility would have to develop and use a designed 

firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced 

in the shuttle kiln, by programming the time and 

temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on 

a log sheet.

• Each facility would have to label each shuttle kiln with 

the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln 

during a single firing cycle.

 65 See the BSCP industry communication titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the 

docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 207 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the 

maximum load and each facility would have to document the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to show that it is not 

greater than the maximum load.

• Each facility would have to develop and implement 

maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the 

frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following 

items:

o Calibration of temperature measuring devices

o Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios

o Controls that regulate firing cycles

• Each facility would have to develop and maintain records 

required for each shuttle kiln, including logs to document 

the proper operation of the shuttle kilns and logs of the 

maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with 

the standard.

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

As stated in section V.E of this preamble, we are proposing 

work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for 

ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile 

spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns. We are not proposing 

alternate standards for periods of startup and shutdown for 

ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths.

As noted in section V.B of this preamble, roller and tunnel 

kilns and dryers typically operate continuously, so startups and 

shutdowns are infrequent. Startup of a roller or tunnel kiln 

involves starting up the burners based on a set procedure to 

raise the temperature of the kiln to the proper operational 

temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics. Shutdown of a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 208 of 444 Formatted: Normal

roller or tunnel kiln is the process of cooling the kiln from 

the proper operational temperature by stopping the burners based 

on a set procedure. Similarly, startup and shutdown of a dryer 

is the process of raising the temperature to the proper 

operational temperature or lowering the temperature from the 

proper operational temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics. 

When the temperature of the kiln or dryer is below the proper 

operational temperature, ceramic tile and sanitaryware 

manufacturers typically do not push ceramics into the kiln, so 

the emissions are expected to be much lower during startup and 

shutdown than during normal operations.

While a kiln or dryer is heating to the proper operational 

temperature during startup or cooling from the operational 

temperature during shutdown, other parameters such as exhaust 

flow rate, moisture content, O2 concentration and pressure are 

also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may 

not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown 

progresses, as the kiln or dryer does not heat or cool evenly. 

The fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with 

the relatively steady-state conditions needed for valid, 

accurate results over three test runs using the measurement 

methods proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance. Even if

testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, the emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 209 of 444 Formatted: Normal

limit formats chosen for this proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule are not appropriate for use during periods 

other than normal operation. Specifically, if there is no 

throughout in the kiln or dryer, emission limits that are in a 

mass per throughput format would be essentially meaningless.

We did not receive any detailed information through the 

2010 EPA survey about the startup or shutdown of ceramic tile 

roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns. However, ceramic tile roller kilns 

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns are fired at similar or slightly 

higher temperatures to BSCP tunnel kilns and they would likely 

use similar APCD to comply with the standards. Therefore, we 

expect that the issues described in section IV.E of this 

preamble associated with venting low-temperature kiln exhaust 

through an APCD on a BSCP tunnel kiln would also apply to an 

APCD on a ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer,

ceramic tile spray dryer or sanitaryware tunnel kiln. We also 

expect that the low temperature set points would be about the 

same as for BSCP tunnel kilns, as those temperatures are based 

on the tolerance of the APCD.

Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, 

floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 210 of 444 Formatted: Normal

sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or 

operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or 

dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature reaches 400 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other 

product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or 

dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is 

being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or 

operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or 

dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no ceramics or 

other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer once the 

kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the 

exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. When the 

kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the 

owner or operator would be required to comply with the 

applicable continuous compliance requirements described in 

section V.G of this preamble.

For ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers,

ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns that can 

meet the proposed standards without an APCD, there are no 

concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures for bypassing an 

APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data through the 2010 

EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of uncontrolled kilns. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 211 of 444 Formatted: Normal

However, as noted above, we recognize that it is not feasible to 

conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown.

Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for periods 

of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns or 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no 

ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer 

until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For 

shutdown, no ceramics or other product may be put into the kiln 

or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 

°F. When there are ceramics in the kiln or dryer, the owner or 

operator would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this 

preamble).

We are not proposing alternate standards (either work 

practice standards or an alternate numeric emission limit) for 

periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected 

to comply with the emissions limitations (as described in 

section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the source is 

operating, including periods of startup and shutdown. We did not 

receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey suggesting that 

alternate standards for periods of startup and shutdown are 

needed for these sources. Glazing operations are intermittent in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 212 of 444 Formatted: Normal

nature during normal operations, so emissions during startup and 

shutdown would not be expected to be different than emissions 

during normal operations.

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that 

are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the 

requirements of this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. 

These requirements are described in detail in sections V.F and

V.G of this preamble. We selected these requirements based upon 

our determination of the information necessary to ensure that 

the emission standards are being met and the work practices are 

being followed and that APCD and equipment are maintained and 

operated properly. Further, these proposed requirements ensure 

compliance with this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule

without imposing a significant additional burden for facilities 

that must implement them.

We are proposing that initial compliance with the emission 

limits for HF, HCl, PM, Hg and dioxins/furans be demonstrated by 

an initial performance test. The proposed Clay Ceramics

manufacturing rule would also require 5-year repeat performance 

tests to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating 

properly and that its performance has not deteriorated.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 213 of 444 Formatted: Normal

The majority of test methods that this proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule would require for the performance 

stack tests (e.g., EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required 

under many other EPA standards. Many of the emissions tests upon 

which the proposed emission limits are based were conducted 

using these test methods.

When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that 

parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To 

ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits, 

the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would require 

continuous parameter monitoring of the kilns and APCD and 

maintaining these parameters within the operating limits 

established during the performance test. We selected these 

parameter monitoring requirements because they produce data that 

will be useful to both the owners or operators and the EPA for 

ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and/or 

operating limits and because of their reasonable cost and ease 

of execution.

The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed 

rule were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the clay 

ceramics industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the 

proposed emission limits. These parameters include lime 

injection rate (on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 214 of 444 Formatted: Normal

and DLS/FF; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and chemical 

addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; activated 

carbon flow rate for ACI systems; periodic inspections for water 

curtains; and annual inspections for baffles. If applicable for 

demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl standard, the kiln 

monitoring parameter included in the proposed Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule is the kiln process rate. To demonstrate 

compliance with the dioxin/furan standard for those affected 

sources without an ACI system, the monitoring parameter included 

in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is the 

operating temperature for the affected process (tunnel or roller 

kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer), because 

the formation and destruction of dioxins/furans are influenced 

by temperature conditions. Many of these CPMS are standard 

features on ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns and their associated APCD and have also been used in other 

standards for similar industries.

In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for 

kilns equipped with a FF (e.g., a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand-alone 

FF) to either install a BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to the 

CPMS being proposed, BLD systems have also been used in other 

standards in similar industries. We have also determined that 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 215 of 444 Formatted: Normal

periodic VE checks are a reasonable alternative to BLD systems

for this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. Periodic VE 

checks have also been proposed for affected sources without an 

add-on control to demonstrate continuous compliance.

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which 

affected sources must comply with the emission standards. Under 

CAA section 112(i)(1), new or reconstructed units must be in 

compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or 

the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. (The

final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is 

expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register.)

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), existing sources are allowed 

up to 3 years after the effective date of the rule to comply 

with the final rule. For this industry, we believe that 3 years 

for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, 

install and test any control systems that may need to be 

retrofitted onto existing sources, as well as obtain permits for 

the use of add-on controls.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 216 of 444 Formatted: Normal

The compliance data for existing area sources that 

subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 

63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such sources have 3 years from 

the date they become major sources to come into compliance, 

which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing 

sources discussed in the previous paragraph. Further, under the 

current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source 

becomes a major source by the addition of equipment or 

operations that meet the definition of new affected source under 

this rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new 

affected source must be in compliance upon initial startup.

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

We are proposing that owner/operators would be required to 

comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 9

of the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. We evaluated 

the General Provisions requirements and included those we 

determined to be the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

necessary to ensure compliance with and effective enforcement 

of, this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep 

records on the firing time and temperature cycle for each 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 217 of 444 Formatted: Normal

sanitaryware shuttle kiln, the type of product fired in each 

batch and the amount of product fired in the shuttle kiln, to 

address the operational factors that impact HAP emissions from 

shuttle kilns and demonstrate compliance with the work practice 

standard for shuttle kilns (discussed further in section VI.K.1 

of this preamble).

In addition, we are proposing that the owner or operator

keep records and submit a report of each malfunction and the 

corrective action taken as part of the next semiannual 

compliance report. The proposed compliance report would provide 

information on each type of malfunction which occurred during 

the reporting period and which caused or may have caused an 

exceedance of an emission limit.

This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule also 

includes a requirement for electronic reporting of performance 

test data, which is discussed further in section III.I of this 

preamble.

We request comment on ways that we could streamline the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule by relying on existing business 

practices.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 218 of 444 Formatted: Normal

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

The CAA requires that sources subject to this Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule, once finalized, be operated pursuant to a 

permit issued under an EPA-approved State operating permit 

program. The operating permit programs are developed under title 

V of the CAA and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 

70 and 71. If the facility is operating in the first 3 years of 

an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to obtain a 

revised permit to incorporate the requirements of this Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule. If the facility is in the last 2 

years of an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to 

incorporate the requirements of this Clay Ceramics manufacturing

rule into the next renewal of the permit.

VII. Summary of the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the cost and emissions reduction impacts?

Table 13 of this preamble illustrates the costs and 

emissions reductions for existing sources under the BSCP 

manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule.

Table 13-Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for BSCP and 

Clay Ceramics Existing Sourcesa (2011 dollars)

Industry

Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy)

Capital Annual HF HCl Cl2

Non-Hg 

HAP 

metalsb Hg PM PM2.5 SO2

BSCP $55.9 $19.0 410 24.0 2.09 3.79 0.0590 359 172 255
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 219 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Industry

Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy)

Capital Annual HF HCl Cl2

Non-Hg 

HAP 

metalsb Hg PM PM2.5 SO2

Clay 

Ceramics

$0.102 $0.0458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring. b Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, nickel and selenium. c PM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter.

The nationwide capital and annual costs of the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule are expected to total $55.9 million and 

$19.0 million, respectively (2011 dollars). The nationwide HAP 

emissions reductions achieved under the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule are expected to total 440 tpy. The 

methodology used to estimate the nationwide costs and emissions 

reductions of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is presented 

in the technical memoranda titled “Development of Cost and 

Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP” and “Monitoring 

and Testing Requirements and Costs for the BSCP NESHAP” in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points 

will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule, so no emission control costs or 

emissions reductions are expected for these sources. However, 

these facilities will incur monitoring and testing costs to 

demonstrate compliance with the proposed Clay Ceramics 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 220 of 444 Formatted: Normal

manufacturing rule. These costs are documented in the technical 

memorandum titled “Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs 

for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290.

There are no major sources producing ceramic tile. The five

facilities that were major sources at the time of the 2008 and 

2010 EPA surveys have already taken the necessary steps to 

become synthetic area sources. Consequently, none of the known 

tile facilities will be subject to the provisions of the Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule, which means that no costs or 

emissions reductions are expected for tile affected sources

under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. We request 

comment on whether we need to finalize the standards for ceramic 

tile manufacturing even though there currently are no major 

sources.

B. What are the secondary impacts?

Table 14 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts 

for existing sources under the BSCP and Clay Ceramics proposed 

rule.

Table 14—Summary of Secondary Impacts for BSCP and Clay Ceramics 

Existing Sourcesa

Control option

Secondary air emissions (tpy)

Energy 

impacts 

(MMBtu/yr)

Solid 

waste 

impacts 

PM PM2.5 CO NOX SO2 (tpy)

BSCP 1.93 0.646 3.60 28.0 81.7 268,000 8,630
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 221 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Clay Ceramics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a PM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter; CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; MMBtu/yr = million 

British thermal units per year.

The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the 

BSCP manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule 

includes secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste 

impacts. Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that 

result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 

operation of APCD to meet the proposed limits (i.e., increased 

secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). 

Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate the 

APCD and solid waste impacts consist of the particulate captured 

by the APCD that is disposed of as waste (not reused or 

recycled).

Under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, the nationwide 

secondary emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, carbon 

monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2 are expected to 

total 115 tpy, with energy impacts of 268,000 million British 

thermal units per year (MMBtu/yr) and solid waste impacts of

8,630 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide 

secondary impacts of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is 

presented in the technical memorandum “Development of Cost and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 222 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP” in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that 

all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor 

emission limits in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 

rule, so there are no secondary impacts expected for these 

sources. There are no major sources producing ceramic tile. The

five facilities that were major sources at the time of the 2008 

and 2010 EPA surveys have already taken the necessary steps to 

become synthetic area sources. Consequently, none of the known 

ceramic tile facilities are expected to be subject to the 

provisions of the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, which means

that no secondary impacts are expected for ceramic tile affected 

sources under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

C. What are the economic impacts?

For the BSCP Manufacturing source category, the average 

national brick price under the proposed standards increases by 

1.4 percent or $3.29 per 1,000 Standard Brick Equivalent (SBE)

(2011 dollars), while overall domestic production falls by 1.1

percent or 38 million bricks per year. Under the proposed 

standards, the EPA estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing 

facilities are at significant risk of closure.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 223 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Based on the results of the small entity screening analysis

for BSCP Manufacturing, the EPA concluded that it is not able to 

certify that the BSCP manufacturing rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As 

a result, the EPA initiated a SBAR Panel and undertook an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).

For clay ceramics manufacturing, one sanitaryware company 

owns major sources and will incur costs. That affected company 

is not a small business. The compliance costs are less than 

0.001 percent of sales for the affected company. Hence, the 

economic impact for compliance is minimal. Because no small 

firms face significant control costs, there is no significant 

impact on small entities. Thus, the proposed Clay Ceramics 

regulation is not expected to have significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.

For more information on the benefits analysis and market 

analyses, please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)

for the BSCP manufacturing rule, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,” which is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

D. What are the social costs and benefits of the proposed rule?

Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of 

thisthe proposed BSCP manufacturing rule will generate benefits 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 224 of 444 Formatted: Normal

by reducing emissions of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and 

their precursors, NOX and SO2. SO2 and NOX are precursors to PM2.5

(particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter) and Nox is a precursor to ozone. The criteria 

pollutant benefits are considered co-benefits for this proposed 

rule. For this proposed rule, we were only able to quantify the 

health co-benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 from 

emission reductions of SO2 and directly emitted PM2.5 because of 

methodological limitations associated with quantifying and 

monetizing HAP benefits. We estimate the monetized co-benefits 

of the proposed amendments of the BSCP NESHAP in 2018 to be $52

million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 

rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate. Using alternate relationships between 

PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and 

lower co-benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the 

expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates.66 A 

summary of the emission reduction and monetized co-benefits 

estimates for this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule at discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 15 of this 

preamble.

 66 Roman, et al., 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of 

Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.,” Environ. Sci. 

Technol., 42, 7, 2268 – 2274.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 225 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Table 15-Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP for in 2018

(millions of 2011 dollars)a,b

Pollutant

Emission 

reductions (tpy)

Total monetized cobenefits

(3 percent 

Discount)

Total monetized cobenefits

(7 percent 

Discount)

Directly 

emitted PM2.5

170 45 to 100 41 to 92

PM2.5 precursors

SO2 173 7 to 16 6 to 14

a All estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant 

figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized co-benefits 

reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5

through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as SO2 and directly emitted PM2.5. 

It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do not include reduced 

health effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. b PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to 

Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing 

premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to 

allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type.

These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized 

human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from 

controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet 

this proposed rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not 

possible to conduct air quality modeling for this proposed rule. 

Instead, we used a “benefit-per-ton” approach to estimate the 

benefits of this rulemaking. To create the benefit-per-ton 

estimates, this approach uses a model to convert emissions of 

PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another 

model to estimate the changes in human health associated with 

that change in air quality, which are then divided by the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 226 of 444 Formatted: Normal

emissions in specific sectors. These benefit-per-ton estimates 

were derived using the approach published in Fann et al. 

(2012),67 but they have since been updated to reflect the studies 

and population data in the 2012 PM National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) RIA.68 Specifically, we multiplied the benefitper-ton estimates from the “Non-EGU Point other” category by the 

corresponding emission reductions.69 All national-average 

benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of 

the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission 

reductions in this rulemaking and thus, they may not reflect the 

local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, 

baseline health incidence rates or other local factors for any 

specific location. More information regarding the derivation of 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for this category is available in 

the technical support document, which is available in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

 67 Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand C.M. Fulcher. 2012. “Characterizing the PM2.5-

related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and 

mobile emission sectors across the U.S.” Environment International 49 41–151. 68 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-003. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf. 69 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical support document: 

Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5 precursors from 17 sectors.

Research Triangle Park, NC. January.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 227 of 444 Formatted: Normal

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of 

their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing 

premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet 

sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by 

particle type. Even though we assume that all fine particles 

have equivalent health effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates 

vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude 

of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive population exposure.

It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 cobenefits is largely driven by the concentration response 

function for premature mortality. We cite two key empirical 

studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study70

and the extended Six Cities cohort study.71 In the RIA for this 

rule, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291, 

we also include benefits estimates derived from expert judgments 

(Roman et al., 2008) as a characterization of uncertainty 

regarding the PM2.5-mortality relationship.

Considering a substantial body of published scientific 

literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and

 70 Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. 

Itoand G.D. Thurston. 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortalityand Longterm Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American 

Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 71 Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. “Chronic Exposure to Fine 

Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities 

Study from 1974 to 2009.” Environ Health Perspect. July;120(7):965-70.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 228 of 444 Formatted: Normal

clinical studies, the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter72 documents the association between elevated 

PM2.5 concentrations and adverse health effects, including 

increased premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice 

reviewed by the EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board, 

concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that 

a no-threshold model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality 

concentration-response relationship. Therefore, in this 

analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for 

fine particles is without a threshold.

In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the

risks we estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that 

coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the 

epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. 

Likewise, we are less confident in the risk we estimate from 

simulated PM2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the 

observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses 

(e.g., lowest measured level (LML) or one standard deviation 

below the mean of the air quality data in the study) allow 

readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual 

 72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment – RTP Division. December. Available on 

the Internet at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 229 of 444 Formatted: Normal

mean PM2.5 levels at or above different concentrations, which 

provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the 

estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There are uncertainties 

inherent in identifying any particular point at which our 

confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less and

the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. 

However, the EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as 

a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify 

health benefits of air quality improvements.

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not 

available due to time or resource limitations and thus, we are 

unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each

PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we 

provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM2.5

level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate 

the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. Using the 

Krewski, et al. (2009) study, 93 percent of the population is 

exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8 

μg/m3

. Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012) study, 67 percent of the 

population is exposed above the LML of 8 μg/m3. It is important 

to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the 

health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 230 of 444 Formatted: Normal

population and change in air quality. Therefore, caution is 

warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule 

because these results are not consistent with results from rules 

that had air quality modeling.

Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a 

change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to 

some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as 

geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying 

scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit 

and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the 

benefit analysis for this proposed rule provides a reasonable 

indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking 

under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not 

include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA73 because we lack the necessary air quality 

input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. In 

addition, we have not conducted air quality modeling for this 

proposed rule and using a benefit-per-ton approach adds another 

important source of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 

 73 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-003. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 231 of 444 Formatted: Normal

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis provides an indication of the 

sensitivity of our results to various assumptions.

It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates 

provided above do not include benefits from several important 

benefit categories, including exposure to HAP, NOX and ozone 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment. Although we do not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide monetized estimates for this 

proposed rule, we include a qualitative assessment of these 

unquantified benefits in the RIA for these proposed 

amendmentsthe rule.

The specific control technologies for the proposed rule are 

anticipated to have minor secondary disbenefitsimpacts, 

including an increase of 28 tons of NOX, less than 2 tons of PM, 

3 tons of CO and 82 tons of SO2 each year. Given the 

insignificant increase, only secondary effects of PM and SO2 were 

included in the monetary evaluation of the actual benefits.

For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer 

to the RIA for this rule, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed 

Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,” which is available 

in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 232 of 444 Formatted: Normal

VIII. Public Participation and Request for Comment

We request comment on all aspects of the proposed rule for 

BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, including 

any alternate approaches that the EPA is considering (see 

section IV.Q of this preamble for further discussion on these 

approaches).

During this rulemaking, we conducted outreach to small 

entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendation of representatives of the small entities that 

potentially would be subject to the requirements of the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule. (Note: We did not convene a SBAR Panel 

for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule because none

of the major source facilities subject to the proposed Clay 

Ceramics manufacturing rule are owned by a small entity.) As 

part of the SBAR Panel process, we conducted outreach with 

representatives from various small entities that would be 

affected by the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. We met with 

these small entity representatives (SERs) to discuss the 

potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to 

decrease the impact of the BSCP manufacturing rulemaking on 

their industries/sectors. We distributed outreach materials to 

the SERs; these materials included background on the BSCP 

manufacturing rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 233 of 444 Formatted: Normal

preliminary cost and economic impacts and possible rulemaking 

alternatives. We met with SERs from the BSCP industry that will 

be impacted directly by the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule to 

discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the 

approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet. The 

Panel received written comments from the SERs following the 

meeting in response to discussions at the meeting and the 

questions posed to the SERs by the agency. The SERs were 

specifically asked to provide comment on regulatory alternatives 

that could help to minimize the BSCP manufacturing rule’s impact 

on small businesses. A copy of the final Panel report is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically 

significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.”

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to OMB for review 

under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 234 of 444 Formatted: Normal

2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the dockets for this action.

In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential

costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is 

contained in “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and

Structural Clay Products NESHAP.” A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule

(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291) and the analysis is briefly 

summarized here.

The EPA’s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities 

will incur total annualized costs of $21 million (2011 dollars)

under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, including costs of 

emission controls, testing and monitoring, along with 

recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that have 

testing and monitoring. Total annualized costs for the alternate 

approach are estimated to be $31 million (2011 dollars). The EPA 

gathered information on firm sales and overall industry 

profitability for firms owning affected BSCP facilities. The EPA 

estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure under the proposed standards. Under 

the alternate approach, the EPA estimated that two to six BSCP

manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 235 of 444 Formatted: Normal

The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the 

proposed rule, as described in section VII of this preamble.

These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of 

reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among 

populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource

and methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing 

the benefits from several important benefit categories, 

including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons 

of HAP each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as 

high as 740 tons of HAP each year through the alternate 

standards, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing 

emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, this rule would reduce 

several non-Hg HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel

and selenium) each year. The EPA estimates the total monetized 

co-benefits to be $52 million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at 

a 3 percent discount rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 

dollars) at a 7 percent discount rate on a yearly average in 

2018 for the proposed standards.

Based on the EPA’s examination of costs and benefits of the 

proposed BSCP NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the 

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule will exceed the costs.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 236 of 444 Formatted: Normal

The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts 

associated with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. Only two 

firms are estimated to incur costs as a result of the proposed 

Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule and they only incur costs 

associated with testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and

reporting. Total annualized costs are only $55,900 (2011 

dollars) and both firms’ estimated costs of complying with the 

proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are less than 0.001

percent of their sales.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the BSCP and 

Clay Ceramics proposed rule have been submitted for approval to 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The information collection request (ICR) document prepared 

by the EPA for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned 

the EPA ICR number 2509.01. The ICR document prepared by the EPA 

for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the 

EPA ICR number 2510.01. The information requirements are based 

on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions 

standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 

specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 237 of 444 Formatted: Normal

information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality 

is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth 

in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, the 

proposed rule includes paperwork requirements associated with

initial and 5-year repeat testing for selected process 

equipment, electronic reporting of performance test results, 

parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance 

and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with 

work practice standards and periods of malfunction.

There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major 

sources of HAP. An estimated 25 of these facilities are 

projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation 

rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 67 

facilities are expected to be subject to the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule. For these 67 facilities, the annual 

recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the proposed

BSCP standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 15,063 labor

hours per year, at a cost of $796,255/yr. No capital costs

associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 238 of 444 Formatted: Normal

are expected to be incurred during this period. The annual 

operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $983/yr. The 

total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 

3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated 

to be 103 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $5,329 per 

year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b).

There are three clay ceramics facilities that are currently 

major sources of HAP and would be subject to the Clay Ceramics 

manufacturing rule that we are proposing. For these three

facilities, the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden 

associated with the Clay Ceramics standards (averaged over the 

first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is 

estimated to total 674 labor hours per year at a cost of 

$35,653/yr. As with the BSCP standards, no capital costs

associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting 

are expected to be incurred during this period. The annual 

operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $44/yr. The 

total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 

3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated 

to be 4.6 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $239 per 

year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 239 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Because BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not required 

to come into full compliance with the standards until 3 years 

after promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e.g., 

performance tests, inspections, notification of compliance 

status, compliance report, records of compliance data and 

malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following 

promulgation.

For the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, we estimate an 

average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 31,805 

labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 

through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of 

$262,119/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of 

$350,075/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of 

$612,194/yr. The average annual burden for the federal 

government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,953 hours 

per year, at a total labor cost of $207,946 per year. (All costs 

are in 2011 dollars.)

For the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, we 

estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 

1,448 labor hours per year, at a cost of $76,519/yr, for years 4 

through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of 

$27,368/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of 

$21,101/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 240 of 444 Formatted: Normal

$48,469/yr. The average annual burden for the federal government 

for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 hours per year, at 

a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs are in 2011 

dollars.)

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9.

To comment on the agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for each rule, which includes this 

ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 (for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP) and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 

(for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). Submit any 

comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this action for where 

to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 241 of 444 Formatted: Normal

after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register], a 

comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 

receives it by [insert date 30 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA’s) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 242 of 444 Formatted: Normal

is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the 

proposed BSCP NESHAP are small businesses that own BSCP 

manufacturing facilities. Affected parent companies fall under 

the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 

327120) industry and the SBA (2013) defines a small business in 

this industry as a firm with fewer than 750 employees. Of 44 

parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 parent 

companies that are small businesses. Small entities affected by 

the proposed Clay Ceramics NESHAP are small businesses that own 

clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. Affected parent 

companies of ceramic tile facilities fall under the Clay 

Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) 

industry and affected parent companies of sanitaryware 

facilities fall under the Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing 

Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 327110) industry. However, we have 

determined that no small entities would be subject to the clay 

ceramics proposed standards.

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an 

IRFA that examines the impact of the proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that 

could reduce that impact. The IRFA is included in Section 5 of 

the RIA and is available for review in the docket for the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 243 of 444 Formatted: Normal

proposed BSCP manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291) and is summarized below.

1. Need for the Rule

The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), as amended, to establish emission standards for 

each category or subcategory of major and area sources of HAP 

listed for regulation in section 112(b). These standards are 

applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require 

the maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Administrator’s 

judgment, the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing 

facilities cause or contribute significantly to air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health.

Consequently, NESHAP for the BSCP source category are being

proposed.

2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions 

standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on 

the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing 

sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions 

information) or the best performing five sources for source 

categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 244 of 444 Formatted: Normal

and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as 

stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also 

must consider more stringent “beyond-the-floor” control options. 

When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider 

not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, 

but must take into account costs, energy and nonair 

environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed 

to comply with CAA section 112(d).

3. Affected Small Entities

Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 

parent companies that are small businesses. The EPA computed the 

ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost-tosales ratio) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on 

small companies. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated 

that one to two small brick manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure. Under the alternate approach, two 

to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant 

risk of closure.

4. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

Respondents would be required to provide one-time and 

periodic notifications, including initial notification, 

notification of performance tests, and notification of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 245 of 444 Formatted: Normal

compliance status. Respondents would also be required to submit 

semiannual reports documenting compliance with the rule and 

detailing any compliance issues, and they would be required to 

submit the results of performance tests to the EPA’s ERT. 

Respondents would be required to keep documentation supporting 

information included in these notifications and reports, as well 

as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources 

and APCD at the facility.

5. Related Federal Rules 

The EPA determined that there are no related federal rules 

for this source category. 

6. Significant Alternatives

The EPA has included provisions in the proposed rule where 

possible to minimize the burden on all affected entities, 

including small entities. As required by section 609(b) of the 

RFA, as amended by Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), the EPA also conducted outreach to small 

entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations of representatives of the small entities that 

potentially would be subject to the proposed BSCP manufacturing 

rule’s requirements. Seventeen SERs associated with brick 

manufacturing participated. On June 26, 2013, the SBAR Panel 

held an outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 246 of 444 Formatted: Normal

addition to the materials that the SERs received for the prePanel outreach, the SERs were provided with background 

information to help them prepare for the teleconference and 

prepare their comments on the proposed rulemaking.

Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel 

evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on 

issues related to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel 

report is included in the docket for the proposed BSCP 

manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291).

The SBAR made several recommendations to enhance 

flexibility for small businesses complying with the proposed 

BSCP manufacturing rule. The EPA adopted the panel 

recommendations to the extent feasible, as described below:

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices 

for dioxin and take comment on the feasibility of work 

practice standards for Hg and other metals. The discussion 

of work practices for Hg and other metals should clearly 

identify any areas where the agency believes that the data 

do not support work practices to allow for meaningful 

comments and also discuss work practice alternatives with 

sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as 

an alternative in the final BSCP manufacturing rule.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practices for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 247 of 444 Formatted: Normal

dioxin/furan. Although the EPA is proposing emission limits 

for Hg and for non-Hg HAP metals, the EPA is specifically 

requesting comment in the proposal on whether or not work 

practice standards for non-Hg HAP metals and for Hg are 

appropriate.

• The panel recommended that the EPA co-propose both a 

health-based limit and MACT limits for acid gases unless 

the EPA determines it lacks sufficient information to 

propose a numerical health-based limit.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing a health-based emission 

limit for acid gases in lieu of MACT limits.

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate 

subcategories for kilns based on size if it reduces the 

financial impact and that the EPA should take comment and 

solicit data on subcategorization based on raw materials, 

fuels and other factors.

Proposed rule: The EPA evaluated the data to determine if 

subcategories of sources were supported, including 

subcategories by kiln size. As a result, the EPA is

proposing emission limits for Hg in two subcategories based 

on kiln size (large, small). However, although the EPA has 

the discretion to subcategorize by kiln size, the EPA 

determined it was not necessary to exercise this discretion 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 248 of 444 Formatted: Normal

for all pollutants, including total non-Hg HAP metals. 

Instead, the EPA is proposing a choice of emission limits 

for PM or total non-Hg HAP metals for all tunnel kilns. The 

ability to comply with the equivalent lb/hr total non-Hg

HAP metals limit provides additional flexibility for small 

tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in 

the PM emissions.

• The panel recommended that the EPA specifically request 

information, at proposal, on how the presence of sawdust 

dryers would affect emissions and control costs.

Proposed rule: The proposed rule requests comment on 

whether the EPA should create a subcategory for kilns fired 

with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice 

standards for startup and shutdown.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practice standards 

for periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns.

• The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on 

12 percent of the entire source category if the EPA can 

establish that the data available to the agency represent 

the best-performing sources consistent with section 112 of 

the CAA and relevant case law.

Proposed rule: The test data for PM (the surrogate for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 249 of 444 Formatted: Normal

total non-Hg HAP metals) showed that kilns controlled with 

a FF-based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) are the better

performers and at least 12 percent of the kilns in the 

industry are controlled with a FF-based APCD. Therefore, 

the MACT limit is based on the top 12 percent of the kilns 

in the industry (i.e., the best-performing sources with a 

FF-based APCD). However, the EPA was unable to establish 

that the data available to the agency represented the bestperforming sources for Hg control. Therefore, the MACT 

limit for Hg is based upon the top 12 percent of sources 

for which we had test data.

We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its 

impacts on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless 

otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and 

the private sector. This action does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any 1 year. This action is not expected to 

impact state, local or tribal governments. The nationwide annual 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 250 of 444 Formatted: Normal

cost to the affected industry is estimated to be $19.0 million

per year for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule and $54,100

per year for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule (2011 

dollars). Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

This action is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. It contains no requirements that apply to such 

governments, nor does it impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national government and the states or

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned 

or operated by state governments and nothing in this proposal 

will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and state and local governments, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 251 of 444 Formatted: Normal

the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action

from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the federal government and Indian 

tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. The action imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing 

facilities and not tribal governments. Although Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal 

officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 252 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology 

performance. Nevertheless, this action will result in reductions 

in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans and Hg and other 

metals, which will provide some increased protection of health 

for people of all ages including children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. This action will not 

adversely directly affect productivity, competition or prices in 

the energy sector.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 253 of 444 Formatted: Normal

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The 

EPA proposes to use the following four VCS as acceptable 

alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this 

rule. ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981, Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 3A and 3B 

for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental 

procedures. ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test 

Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from 

Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method,” is 

acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.

ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), “Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method),” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion 

for Hg only).

ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), “Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,” is 

acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following 

conditions: (1) the test plan preparation and implementation in 

the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 254 of 444 Formatted: Normal

mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking 

Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target 

analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be 

acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 

70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R 

value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the 

test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must 

be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or

analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R 

value for each compound must be reported in the test report and

all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R 

value for that compound by using the following equation: 

Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 

100)/%R.

The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 

potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards 

should be used in one or both of these regulations.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 255 of 444 Formatted: Normal

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States.

The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous 

populations because they increase the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any minority, 

low income or indigenous populations. The proposed rule 

establishes national standards that will result in reductions in 

emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans and Hg and other metals 

to which all affected populations are exposed. Thus the proposed 

rule is projected to have positive, not adverse, impacts on 

human health and the environment.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Page 256 of 444

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

____________________________

Dated:

____________________________

Gina McCarthy,

Administrator.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 257 of 444

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the 

Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 

as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as 

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Section 63.14 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (f)(1);

b. Revising paragraph (g)(74);

c. Revising paragraph (g)(84);

d. Adding paragraph (g)(95); and

e. Revising paragraph (l)(2).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, 

IBR approved for §§63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 

63.865(b), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 

63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 258 of 444

63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 

63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 

63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to 

subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart 

KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, and table 1 to subpart 

ZZZZZ.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(74) ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method 

for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

including Annexes A1 through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR 

approved for table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, 

tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix B to subpart 

UUUUU.

* * * * *

(84) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method 

for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in 

Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario 

Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for 

§§63.11646(a), 63.11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 

13 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 259 of 444

subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart 

UUUUU, and appendix A to subpart UUUUU.

* * * * *

(95) ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method 

for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral 

Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method, IBR approved for 

table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and table 4 to subpart KKKKK.

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(2) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, 

September 1997, IBR approved for §§63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 

63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).

3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart JJJJJ to read as 

follows:

Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?

63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?

63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 260 of 444

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?

63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?

63.8490 What records must I keep?

63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 261 of 444

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests

Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ

What This Subpart Covers

§63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission limitations for 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and structural 

clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also 

establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the emission limitations.

§63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 

BSCP manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part 

of, a major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(a) A BSCP manufacturing facility is a plant site that 

manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, 

structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 262 of 444

extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional 

clay products. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing 

facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the 

processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the 

bricks or shapes.

(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary 

source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area 

under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any 

single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per 

year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 

tons) or more per year.

§63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or 

reconstructed affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility.

(b) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected sources 

are described in paragraph (b)(1) and (2).

(1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility are 

an affected source. For the remainder of this subpart, a tunnel 

kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 

9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of 

fired product will be called a large tunnel kiln, and a tunnel 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 263 of 444

kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of 

fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln.

(2) Each periodic kiln is an affected source.

(c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this 

subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section.

(1) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of 

this subpart.

(2) Raw material processing and handling.

(3) Dryers.

(d) A source is a new affected source if construction of 

the affected source began after [insert date of publication in 

the Federal Register], and you met the applicability criteria at 

the time you began construction.

(e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the 

criteria as defined in §63.2.

(f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 

reconstructed.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 264 of 444

§63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you 

must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(2) of this section.

(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is 

after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register] but 

before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with 

the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards 

in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 

[THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your 

affected source.

(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must 

comply with the applicable emission limitations and work 

practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 265 of 444

later than [THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) If you have an existing area source that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 

source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by 

reconstructing, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for 

which construction or reconstruction commenced after [insert 

date of publication in the Federal Register]) that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 

source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8480 

according to the schedule in §63.8480 and in subpart A of this 

part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 

required to comply with the emission limitations in this 

subpart.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 266 of 444

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

§63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

§63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

(a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to 

this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and 

collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and 

demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and 

collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits 

in Table 2 to this subpart.

(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement 

manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 267 of 444

emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(b) To meet the work practice standards for affected 

periodic kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in 

Table 3 to this subpart.

(c) To meet the work practice standards for dioxins/furans 

for affected tunnel kilns, you must comply with the requirements 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

(d) To meet the work practice standards for affected tunnel 

kilns during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply 

with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements

§63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations 

(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, 

except during periods of routine control device maintenance as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, 

you must operate and maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 268 of 444

pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 

general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make 

any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by 

the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of 

whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and

maintenance requirements will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. During the period between the 

compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8395 

and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) 

(e.g., continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been 

installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have 

been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and 

maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment.

(c) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare 

and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

(OM&M) plan according to the requirements in §63.8425.

(d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject 

to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 269 of 444

must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that 

kiln, you may bypass the kiln control device and continue 

operating the kiln upon approval by the Administrator provided 

you satisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(5) of this section.

(1) You must request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption from the Administrator. Your request must justify the 

need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the 

time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe 

the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance 

activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished 

during kiln shutdowns, describe how you plan to minimize 

emissions to the greatest extent possible during the 

maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the 

Administrator.

(2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must 

not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each 

kiln.

(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance 

exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be 

incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected 

source’s title V permit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 270 of 444

(4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when 

the kiln is operating and the control device is offline.

(5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln 

is operating and the control device is offline.

(e) You must be in compliance with the work practice 

standards in this subpart at all times.

(f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of 

subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 8 to this 

subpart.

§63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

(a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, 

implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes 

the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan 

must be available for inspection by the permitting authority 

upon request.

(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the 

information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.

(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of 

monitoring device that will be used, and the operating 

parameters that will be monitored.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 271 of 444

(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that 

the parameter values will be determined and recorded.

(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous 

compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8405. The limits 

must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded 

during performance tests.

(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and 

long-term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and 

inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations.

(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or 

downstream of the last APCD).

(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 

interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal 

analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system.

(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 272 of 444

(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of 

monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).

(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance 

procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d).

(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8485 and 63.8490.

(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter 

deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) 

through (iii) of this section.

(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating 

parameter deviation.

(ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and 

returning the operating parameters to the allowable limits.

(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation 

began and ended and corrective actions were initiated and 

completed.

(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.

(13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to take 

the kiln control device out of service for routine maintenance, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 273 of 444

as specified in §63.8420(d), the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the kiln 

during periods of routine maintenance of the kiln control device 

when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline.

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period 

of routine maintenance on the kiln control device when the kiln 

is operating and the control device is offline.

(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan 

require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating 

limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the 

Administrator as specified in §63.7(b).

(2) After completing the performance tests to demonstrate 

that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the 

revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the 

performance test results and the revised operating limits as 

part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under 

§63.9(h).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 274 of 444

(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance 

procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new 

performance test.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

§63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct 

performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance 

date that is specified for your source in §63.8395 and according 

to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2).

§63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a 

performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating 

permit or at least every 5 years following the initial 

performance test.

(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to 

change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in 

your OM&M plan.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 275 of 444

§63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must 

install and calibrate all monitoring equipment.

(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in 

Table 4 to this subpart.

(d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative performance of the affected 

source for the period being tested. Representative conditions 

exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. 

The owner or operator must record the process information that 

is necessary to document operating conditions during the test 

and include in such record an explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner 

or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 276 of 444

(e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for 

each performance test required in this section, as specified in 

§63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.

(f) You must use the data gathered during the performance 

test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section to determine compliance with the emission limitations.

(1) To determine compliance with the production-based 

particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions 

per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:

P

ER MP = (Eq. 1)

Where:

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of 

pollutant per megagram (ton) of fired product

ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each 

performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour

P = production rate during each performance test run, 

megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour.

(2) To determine compliance with the health-based standard 

for acid gas HAP for BSCP manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to 

this subpart, you must:

(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF, HCl, and 

Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 2:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 277 of 444

































 +



 



















 = +

2

2

Cl

HCl

Cl

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E

RfC

RfC E E E (Eq. 2)

Where:

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour

EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour

EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour

ECl2 = emissions of Cl2, kilograms (pounds) per hour

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for chlorine, 0.15 micrograms 

per cubic meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, 

sum the HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the 

facility using Equation 3:

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

(Eq. 3)

Where:

Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of all kilns at 

facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 278 of 444

(iii) Compare this value to the health-based standard in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(g) You must establish each site-specific operating limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart.

(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your kiln,

calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for HF, 

HCl, and Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 

4:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 































+













 = +

2

max 2

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC E Cap MP MP (Eq. 4)

Where:

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour

Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of fired 

product per hour

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms 

(pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product

MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 279 of 444

meter

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 micrograms per 

cubic meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, 

sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel 

kilns at the facility using Equation 5:

∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max (Eq. 5)

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for total of 

all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility

(iii) If you have a single tunnel kiln at your facility and

the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions 

(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 

to this subpart, determine the maximum process rate for the 

tunnel kiln using Equation 6 that would ensure the total 

facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or 

below the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would 

become your operating limit for process rate and must be 

included in your OM&M plan.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 280 of 444

( ) ( ) ( ) 































+















+

=

2

2

max

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

iHCl iHF

i

RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC MP MP

HCl - eq P (Eq. 6)

Where:

Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per 

hour

HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 26 

kilograms (57 pounds) per hour

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms 

(pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product

MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 micrograms per 

cubic meter

(iv) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility and 

the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions 

(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 

to this subpart, determine the combination of maximum process 

rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential 

HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HCl-equivalent limit. The 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 281 of 444

maximum process rates would become your operating limits for 

process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.

(h) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with 

an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that 

is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the 

requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring 

procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification 

of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iv) of this section.

(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process 

changes.

(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will 

be used.

(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.

(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will 

be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance 

with the operating limits.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 282 of 444

(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the 

performance test based on the information included in the 

approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as 

applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart.

§63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS 

according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according 

to your OM&M plan.

(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of 

operation for each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid 

hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally 

spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more 

than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control periods, or

periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a 

routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in 

§63.8420(d)).

(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all 

recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 283 of 444

as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate 

the average for each 3-hour average period, you must have at 

least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period (not 

including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control 

periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance 

covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as 

specified in §63.8420(d)).

(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 

validation check.

(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment 

including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for 

routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.

(b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a 

representative flowrate.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate.

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor 

calibration check.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 284 of 444

(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section.

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a 

position that provides a representative measurement of the 

pressure.

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, 

and internal and external corrosion.

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 

0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range.

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not 

plugged.

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly 

and transducer calibration monthly.

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration 

checks or install a new pressure sensor.

(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, 

all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical 

connections for leakage.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 285 of 444

(d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of pH.

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative 

of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points 

every 8 hours of process operation.

(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity 

and all electrical connections for continuity.

(e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.

(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be 

installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the 

“Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14). Other

types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, 

calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations.

(2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 286 of 444

concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter 

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.

(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an 

output of relative PM loadings.

(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a 

device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor.

(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an 

audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an 

increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is 

detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by 

plant operating personnel.

(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak 

detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, 

the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric 

filter.

(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting 

the range and the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time 

according to section 5.0 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 287 of 444

Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997)

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14).

(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the 

sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in your 

OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more 

than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-

day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric 

filter inspection that demonstrates that the fabric filter is in 

good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the 

“Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14). Record 

each adjustment.

(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, 

and validation check.

(f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate 

measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that 

provides a representative feed rate measurement.

(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 288 of 444

(g) For each limestone feed system on a dry limestone 

adsorber (DLA), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1), (4), and (5) of this section and must ensure on a 

monthly basis that the feed system replaces limestone at least 

as frequently as the schedule set during the performance test.

(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring 

procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8445(h) and 

63.8(f).

§63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to 

you according to Table 5 to this subpart.

(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the 

requirements in §63.8445 and Table 4 to this subpart.

(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 

containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 

according to the requirements in §63.8480(e).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 289 of 444

Continuous Compliance Requirements

§63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this 

section.

(b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated 

repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero 

and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect 

data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected 

source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified 

in §63.8420(d) when the affected source is operating.

(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring 

malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or 

required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of 

calculating data averages. A monitoring malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures 

that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 

operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data 

collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 290 of 444

averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data 

and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements.

§63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according 

to the methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart.

(b) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with 

an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or 

that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart, and each operating limit established as required 

in §63.8445(h)(2) according to the methods specified in your 

approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described 

in §§63.8445(h)(1) and 63.8(f).

(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet 

each emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart 

that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 291 of 444

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance. These 

instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this 

subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 

requirements in §63.8485.

(d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device 

maintenance covered by an approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption according to §63.8420(d) are not 

violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

(e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible 

emissions (VE) from tunnel kilns that are uncontrolled or 

equipped with DLA, dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry 

lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), or other dry control 

device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack 

according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the 

affected source is operating under normal conditions. The 

duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 292 of 444

(2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted 

using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily 

Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the 

frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that 

kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a 

daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed 

in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again 

decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.

(3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must report these 

deviations by following the requirements in §63.8485.

Notifications, Reports, and Records

§63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.7(b) 

and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) 

that apply to you, by the dates specified.

(b) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your 

affected source before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 293 of 444

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must 

submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days 

after [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new 

or reconstructed affected source on or after [THE DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later 

than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.

(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you 

must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance 

test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is 

scheduled to begin, as required in §63.7(b)(1).

(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or 

other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 

and 5 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (3) of this section.

(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a 

performance test conducted according to the requirements in 

Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of 

Compliance Status, including the performance test results, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 294 of 444

before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following 

the completion of the performance test, according to 

§63.10(d)(2).

(2) In addition to the requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you 

must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of 

this section in your Notification of Compliance Status.

(i) The operating limit parameter values established for 

each affected source with supporting documentation and a 

description of the procedure used to establish the values.

(ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag 

leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting 

documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8450(e).

(3) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 

to this subpart that does not include a performance test (i.e., 

compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards), you 

must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the 

close of business on the 30th calendar day following the 

completion of the compliance demonstrations.

(f) If you request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption according to §63.8420(d), you must submit your request 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 295 of 444

for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance 

date.

§63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 7 to this subpart 

that applies to you.

(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different 

schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must 

submit each report by the date in Table 7 to this subpart and as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) The first compliance report must cover the period 

beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your 

affected source in §63.8395 and ending on June 30 or December 

31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For 

example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first 

semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on 

December 31.

(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 

semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or 

the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 296 of 444

(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 

regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the 

permitting authority has established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent 

compliance reports according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of according to the dates in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

(c) The compliance report must contain the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the 

statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and 

complete.

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 

reporting period.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 297 of 444

(4) A description of control device maintenance performed 

while the control device was offline and the kiln controlled by 

the control device was operating, including the information 

specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) The date and time when the control device was shut down 

and restarted.

(ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the 

number of hours that the kiln operated while the control device 

was offline.

(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device 

maintenance was included in your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63.8420(d). If 

the control device maintenance was included in your approved 

routine control device maintenance exemption, then you must 

report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) 

of this section.

(A) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by 

the control device operated during the current semiannual 

compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance 

period.

(B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the 

control device operated while the control device was offline for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 298 of 444

maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance 

exemption during the current semiannual compliance period and 

during the previous semiannual compliance period.

(C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs 

(c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual 

percent of kiln operating uptime during which the control device 

was offline for routine maintenance using Equation 7.

(100) p c

p c

KU KU

DT DT

RM

+

+ = (Eq. 7)

Where:

RM = Annual percentage of kiln uptime during which control 

device was offline for routine control device maintenance

DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual 

compliance period

DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual 

compliance period

KUp = Kiln uptime for the previous semiannual compliance period

KUc = Kiln uptime for the current semiannual compliance period

(5) A report of the most recent burner tune-up conducted to 

comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard in Table 3 

to this subpart.

(6) If there are no deviations from any emission 

limitations (emission limits or operating limits) that apply to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 299 of 444

you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limitations during the 

reporting period.

(7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was outof-control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report 

must contain a statement that there were no periods during which 

the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.

(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected 

source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain 

the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3) of this section. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance.

(1) The total operating time of each affected source during 

the reporting period and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and 

cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 

applicable, and the corrective action taken.

(3) The applicable operating limit or work practice 

standard from which you deviated and either the parameter 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 300 of 444

monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you 

deviated from the work practice standard.

(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected 

source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) 

of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 

routine control device maintenance.

(1) The total operating time of each affected source during 

the reporting period and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except 

for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.

(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-ofcontrol, including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.

(4) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during routine 

control device maintenance covered in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption or during another period, 

and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if 

applicable).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 301 of 444

(5) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit during the deviation, and a 

description of the method used to estimate the emissions.

(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to 

a deviation.

(7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during 

the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the 

total source operating time during that reporting period.

(8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations 

during the reporting period into those that were due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes.

(9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during 

the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that reporting 

period.

(10) A brief description of the process units.

(11) A brief description of the CMS.

(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.

(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or 

control equipment since the last reporting period.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 302 of 444

(f) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, 

the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded.

(2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected facility to minimize 

emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b), including actions 

taken to correct a malfunction.

(g) If you have obtained a title V operating permit 

according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report 

all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual 

monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report 

according to Table 7 to this subpart along with, or as part of, 

the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the 

compliance report includes all required information concerning 

deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 303 of 444

limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any 

obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual 

monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will 

not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority.

(h) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test 

following the procedure specified in either paragraph (h)(1) or 

(h)(2) of this section.

(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) at the 

time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance 

test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 

Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp).)

Performance test data must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Instead of 

submitting performance test data in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alternate 

electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 304 of 444

language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, once the 

XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being submitted is confidential 

business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT (or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT Web site once the XML schema is available), including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive,

or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

AdministratorGroup Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 

4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file (or 

alternate file) with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the 

EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.

(2) For data collected using test methods that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site

at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the 

performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address 

listed in §63.13.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 305 of 444

§63.8490 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section.

(1) A copy of each notification and report that you 

submitted to comply with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial Notification or 

Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according 

to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

(2) Records of performance tests as required in 

§63.10(b)(2)(viii).

(3) Records relating to control device maintenance and 

documentation of your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption, if you request such an exemption under 

§63.8420(d).

(b) You must keep the records required in Table 6 to this 

subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission 

limitation and work practice standard that applies to you.

(c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (11) of this section.

(1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each 

alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 306 of 444

initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of 

the alarm and the corrective action taken.

(2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter 

value, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief 

explanation of the cause of the deviation, actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b) and the 

corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation, and whether the deviation 

occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 

Record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted 

over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions.

(3) For each affected source, records of production rates 

on a fired-product basis.

(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 

procedures.

(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

(6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any 

revisions, with records documenting conformance.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 307 of 444

(7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs 

(c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section to document proper 

operation of your periodic kiln.

(i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for 

each product produced in each periodic kiln. If all periodic 

kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be 

maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to 

use in log sheets.

(ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of 

product fired in each batch, the corresponding time and 

temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of 

whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired.

(iii) For each periodic kiln, a log of the actual tonnage 

of product fired in the periodic kiln and an indication of 

whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that 

specific kiln.

(8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic 

kiln work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart.

(9) Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the 

dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 308 of 444

(10) For periods of startup, records of the date, time, and 

duration of each startup period, logs of the kiln exhaust 

temperature at the time the first bricks were placed in the 

kiln, and if applicable, logs of the temperature when the kiln 

exhaust stopped bypassing the control device. For periods of 

shutdown, records of the date, time, and duration of each 

shutdown period, logs of the kiln exhaust temperature at the 

time the last bricks were placed in the kiln, and if applicable, 

logs of the temperature when the kiln exhaust began bypassing 

the control device.

(11) For each malfunction, records of the following 

information:

(i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment.

(ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 309 of 444

§63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily 

available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1).

(b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 

for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 

maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.

(c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years 

after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). 

You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information

§63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

§63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the 

U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or 

tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated 

authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that 

agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 310 of 444

enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority 

of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph 

(c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the 

U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal 

agency.

(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, 

local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) of this section.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability 

requirements in §§63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date 

requirements in §63.8395, and the non-opacity emission 

limitations in §63.8405.

(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under 

§63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90.

(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) 

and as defined in §63.90.

(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and 

reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 311 of 444

(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting 

to the EPA required by this subpart.

§63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air 

Act, in §63.2, and in this section as follows:

Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment 

that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the 

air.

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric 

filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection 

system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that 

operates on triboelectric, light-scattering, lighttransmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings.

Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing 

facility means a plant site that manufactures brick (including, 

but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick 

pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; 

and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and 

structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically 

process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into 

bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 312 of 444

Deviation means any instance in which an affected source 

subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a 

source:

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established 

by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission 

limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice 

standard; or

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 

implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any 

affected source required to obtain such a permit.

Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent 

into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.

Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or 

other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric 

filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of 

the sorbent.

Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means an APCD that includes a 

limestone storage bin, a reaction chamber that is essentially a 

packed tower filled with limestone, and may or may not include a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 313 of 444

peeling drum that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to 

regenerate the stone for reuse.

Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating 

limit.

Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering 

a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.

Initial startup means:

(1) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with 

a DLA, the time at which the temperature in the kiln first 

reaches 260°C (500°F) and the kiln contains product; or

(2) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with 

a DIFF, DLS/FF, or wet scrubber (WS), the time at which the kiln 

first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent 

of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected 

source begins firing BSCP, whichever is earlier.

Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the 

exhaust from a tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the 

atmosphere (or to an APCD), rather than to a sawdust dryer.

Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or 

reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 

9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 314 of 444

Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this 

subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total 

particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8), and 

as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates 

including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium.

Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln.

Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that 

is under common control, including properties that are separated 

only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control 

includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the 

same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination 

thereof.

Responsible official means responsible official as defined 

in 40 CFR 70.2.

Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or 

reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 

tph) of fired product.

Startup means the setting in operation of an affected 

source and starting the production process.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 315 of 444

Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire 

BSCP. Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including a 

process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an 

APCD, and a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted 

to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being 

emitted to the atmosphere.

Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of 

brick, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one 

year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). If 

a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity 

is considered to be the capacity following modifications.

Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may 

include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. 

Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.

Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work 

practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is 

promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in 

the following table that applies to you:

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 316 of 444

For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

1. Collection of all tunnel 

kilns at facility, including 

all process streams.

HF, HCl, and Cl2

emissions must not exceed 

26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl 

equivalent, under the 

health-based standard, as 

determined using 

Equations 2 and 3.

Not applicable.

2. Existing tunnel kiln, 

including all process 

streams.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.082 kg/Mg 

(0.16 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. PM emissions must 

not exceed 92

mg/dscm (0.040

gr/dscf) at 7% O2; 

or

ii. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.0011 kg/hr (0.023

lb/hr) of fired 

product.

3. Existing large tunnel 

kiln (design capacity ≥10 

tph of fired product), 

including all process 

streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.1 E-05 kilogram 

per megagram (kg/Mg) (2.2 

E-05 pound per ton 

(lb/ton)) of fired 

product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 29 

micrograms per dry 

standard cubic meter 

(μg/dscm) at 7% O2; 

or

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 1.2 

E-04 kg/hr (2.7 E-04

lb/hr).

4. Existing small tunnel 

kiln (design capacity <10 

tph of fired product), 

including all process 

streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2; or

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 5.0 

E-04 kg/hr (0.0011 

lb/hr).

5. New or reconstructed 

tunnel kiln, including all 

process streams

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.011 kg/Mg 

(0.022 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. PM emissions must 

not exceed 15

mg/dscm (0.0066

gr/dscf) at 7% O2; 

or
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 317 of 444

For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

ii. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032

lb/hr) of fired 

product.

6. New or reconstructed 

large tunnel kiln, including 

all process streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 13 

μg/dscm at 7% O2.

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 1.1 

E-04 kg/hr (2.4 E-04 

lb/hr).

7. New or reconstructed 

small tunnel kiln, including 

all process streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2.

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 5.0 

E-04 kg/hr (0.0011 

lb/hr).

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each operating limit 

in the following table that applies to you:

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits

For 

each... You must...

1. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DLA.

a. Maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-

hour block period at or above the average pressure drop 

established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; or, if you

are monitoring the bypass stack damper position, initiate 

corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damper is opened 

allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and complete 

corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan; and

b. Maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone 

hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at 

all times; maintain the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of 

fired product basis) at or above the level established during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 318 of 444

For 

each... You must...

c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was 

used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; maintain records of 

the source and grade of limestone; and

d. Maintain no VE from the DLA stack.

2. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective 

action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and 

complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; 

operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not 

engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 

6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF 

or DLS/FF stack; and

b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to 

the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain 

the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or 

above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test for continuous injection systems.

3. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average pressure drop established 

during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance test; and

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; and

c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow 

rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

performance tests; and

d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the 

average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block period 

at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test.

4. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with an 

ACI 

system.

Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average carbon flow rate established 

during the Hg performance test.

5. Tunnel 

kiln with 

no add-on 

control.

a. Maintain no VE from the stack.

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process 

rate determined according to §63.8445(g)(1).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 319 of 444

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each work practice 

standard in the following table that applies to you:

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

For each... You must... According to the following requirements...

1. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

periodic kiln

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Develop and use a designed firing time 

and temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the periodic kiln. You must 

either program the time and temperature 

cycle into your kiln or track each step on 

a log sheet; and

ii. Label each periodic kiln with the 

maximum load (in tons) of product that can 

be fired in the kiln during a single firing 

cycle; and

iii. For each firing load, document the 

total tonnage of product placed in the kiln 

to ensure that it is not greater than the 

maximum load identified in item 1b; and

iv. Develop and follow maintenance 

procedures for each kiln that, at a 

minimum, specify the frequency of 

inspection and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that regulate 

air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that 

regulate firing cycles; and

v. Develop and maintain records for each 

periodic kiln, as specified in §63.8490.

2. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln

a. Minimize 

dioxin/furan 

emissions.

i. Maintain and inspect the burners and 

associated combustion controls (as 

applicable); and

ii. Tune the specific burner type to 

optimize combustion.

3. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln during 

periods of startup

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln 

until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 

204 °C (400 °F); and

ii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin venting

the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

by the time the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 204 °C (400 °F).

4. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln during 

periods of shutdown

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln once 

the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 149 

°C (300 °F); and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 320 of 444

For each... You must... According to the following requirements...

ii. If your kiln has an APCD, continue to 

vent the exhaust from the kiln through the 

APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature 

falls to 149 °C (300 °F).

As stated in §63.8445, you must conduct each performance 

test in the following table that applies to you:

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

1. Tunnel 

kiln.

a. Select 

locations of 

sampling ports 

and the number 

of traverse 

points.

Method 1 or 1A of 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

the APCD and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources. 

b. Determine 

velocities and 

volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

You may use Method 2A, 

2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1, 

or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2, 

as appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1.

c. Conduct gas 

molecular weight 

analysis.

Method 3 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2.

You may use Method 3A or 

3B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, as 

appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 

[Part 10] (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to the 

manual procedures (but 

not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods

3A and 3B.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 321 of 444

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

d. Measure 

moisture content 

of the stack 

gas.

Method 4 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.

e. Measure HF, 

HCl and Cl2

emissions.

Method 26A of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or

You may use Method 26 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, as an alternative 

to using Method 26A of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, when no acid PM 

(e.g., HF or HCl 

dissolved in water 

droplets emitted by 

sources controlled by a 

WS) is present. ASTM 

D6735-01 (Reapproved 

2009) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Methods 

26 and 26A.

Method 320 of 

appendix A of 

this part.

When using Method 320 of

appendix A of this part, 

you must follow the 

analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 

of Method 320 of 

appendix A of this part, 

unless you can 

demonstrate that the 

complete spiking 

procedure has been 

conducted at a similar 

source. ASTM D6348-03 

(Reapproved 2010) 

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14) 

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 

320 if the test plan 

preparation and 

implementation in 

Annexes A1-A8 are 

mandatory and the %R in 

Annex A5 is determined 

for each target analyte.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 322 of 444

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

f. Measure PM 

emissions or 

non-Hg HAP 

metals.

i. For PM only: 

Method 5 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; or

ii. For PM or 

non-Hg HAP 

metals: Method 29 

of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8.

To determine PM, weigh 

the filter and report 

the results as PM 

filterable.

g. Measure Hg 

emissions.

Method 29 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8.

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 29 

(portion for Hg only).

2. Tunnel kiln 

with no add-on 

control.

Establish the

operating 

limit(s) for 

kiln process 

rate if the 

total facility 

maximum 

potential HClequivalent 

emissions are 

greater than the 

HCl-equivalent 

limit in Table 1 

to this subpart.

HCl-equivalent 

limit in Table 1 

to this subpart 

and emissions and 

production data 

from the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

Using the procedures in 

§63.8445(g)(1), you must 

determine the maximum 

process rate(s) for your 

kiln(s) that would 

ensure total facility 

maximum potential HClequivalent emissions 

remain at or below the 

HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart. 

The maximum process 

rate(s) would become 

your site-specific

process rate operating 

limit(s).

3. Tunnel kiln 

that is 

complying with 

PM and/or Hg 

productionbased emission 

limits.

Determine the 

production rate 

during each 

PM/Hg test run 

in order to 

determine 

compliance with 

PM and/or Hg 

production-based 

emission limits.

Production data 

collected during 

the PM/Hg 

performance tests 

(e.g., no. of 

pushes per hour, 

no. of bricks per 

kiln car, weight 

of a typical 

fired brick).

You must measure and 

record the production 

rate, on a fired-product 

basis, of the affected 

source for each of the 

three test runs.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 323 of 444

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

4. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a DLA.

a. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

pressure drop 

across the DLA.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must continuously 

measure the pressure 

drop across the DLA, 

determine and record the 

block average pressure 

drop values for the 

three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded pressure 

drop measurements for 

the three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the 

limestone feeder 

setting.

Data from the 

limestone feeder 

during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must ensure that you 

maintain an adequate 

amount of limestone in 

the limestone hopper, 

storage bin (located at 

the top of the DLA), and 

DLA at all times during 

the performance test. 

You must establish your 

limestone feeder 

setting, on a per ton of 

fired product basis, one 

week prior to the 

performance test and 

maintain the feeder 

setting for the one-week 

period that precedes the 

performance test and 

during the performance 

test.

c. Document the 

source and grade 

of limestone 

used.

Records of 

limestone 

purchase.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 324 of 444

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

5. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the lime 

feeder setting.

Data from the 

lime feeder 

during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

For continuous lime 

injection systems, you 

must ensure that lime in 

the feed hopper or silo 

and to the APCD is freeflowing at all times 

during the performance 

test and record the 

feeder setting, on a per 

ton of fired product 

basis, for the three 

test runs. If the feed 

rate setting varies 

during the three test 

runs, determine and 

record the average feed 

rate from the three test 

runs. The average of the 

three test runs 

establishes your minimum 

site-specific feed rate 

operating limit.

6. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber 

pressure drop.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during the 

PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals

performance test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

pressure drop, determine 

and record the block 

average pressure drop 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pressure drop 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 325 of 444

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

pH.

Data from the pH 

measurement 

device during the 

performance 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid pH, determine and 

record the block average 

pH values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pH measurements 

for the three test runs. 

The average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid pH 

operating limit.

c. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

flow rate.

Data from the 

flow rate 

measurement 

device during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 and 

PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals 

performance 

tests.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid flow rate, 

determine and record the 

block average flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded flow rate 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid flow 

rate operating level. If 

different average wet 

scrubber liquid flow 

rate values are measured 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2

and PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

tests, the highest of 

the average values 

become your sitespecific operating 

limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 326 of 444

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

7. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a WS that 

includes 

chemical 

addition to 

the water.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber 

chemical feed 

rate.

Data from the 

chemical feed

rate measurement 

device during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

chemical feed rate, 

determine and record the 

block average chemical 

feed rate values for the 

three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded chemical 

feed rate measurements 

for the three test runs. 

The average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific chemical 

addition rate operating 

limit.

8. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

an ACI system

Establish the

operating limit 

for the average 

carbon flow 

rate.

Data from the 

carbon flow rate 

measurement 

conducted during 

the Hg 

performance test.

You must measure the 

carbon flow rate during 

each test run, determine 

and record the block 

average carbon flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded carbon flow 

rate measurements for 

the three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific activated 

carbon flow rate 

operating limit.

As stated in §63.8455, you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 327 of 444

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

1. Collection of 

all tunnel kilns at 

the facility, 

including all 

process streams.

a. HF, HCl, and 

Cl2 emissions 

must not exceed 

26 kg/hr (57 

lb/hr) HCl 

equivalent.

i. You measure HF, HCl, and Cl2

emissions for each kiln using Method 

26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735-01 

(Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14); or Method 320 

of appendix A of this part or its 

alternative, ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 

2010) (incorporated by reference, see 

§63.14); and

ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for each kiln using Equation 

2 to this subpart; and

iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values 

for all kilns at the facility using 

Equation 3 to this subpart; and

iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent 

does not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr).

2. Existing tunnel 

kiln, including all 

process streams.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.082 kg/Mg 

(0.16 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 

92 mg/dscm 

(0.040 gr/dscf) 

at 7% O2; or

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8, over the period of the 

initial performance test, according to 

the calculations in §63.8445(f)(1), do 

not exceed 0.082 kg/Mg (0.16 lb/ton) 

of fired product or 92 mg/dscm (0.040

gr/dscf) at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which PM 

emissions did not exceed 0.088 kg/Mg 

(0.18 lb/ton) of fired product or 97 

mg/dscm (0.043 gr/dscf) at 7% O2.

b. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.011 kg/hr 

(0.023 lb/hr).

i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions 

measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8, over the period 

of the initial performance test, do 

not exceed 0.011 kg/hr (0.023 lb/hr); 

and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which 

non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not 

exceed 0.0114 kg/hr (0.023 lb/hr).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 328 of 444

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

3. Existing large 

tunnel kiln (design 

capacity ≥10 tph of 

fired product), 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.1 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.2 E-05

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 29 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 1.2 E-04

kg/hr (2.7 E-04

lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the 

period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 1.1 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.2 E-05 lb/ton) of fired product or 

29 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 E-04 kg/hr 

(2.7 E-04 lb/hr); and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which Hg 

emissions did not exceed 1.1 E-05

kg/Mg (2.2 E-05 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 

E-04 kg/hr (2.7 E-04 lb/hr).

4. Existing small 

tunnel kiln (design 

capacity <10 tph of 

fired product), 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 5.0 E-04 

kg/hr (0.0011 

lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the 

period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired product or 

70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E-04 kg/hr 

(0.0011 lb/hr); and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which Hg 

emissions did not exceed 9.9 E-05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 

E-04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr).

5. New or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln, 

including all 

process streams.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.011 kg/Mg 

(0.022 lb/ton) 

of fired product 

or 15 mg/dscm at 

7% O2; or

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-3, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8445(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.011 kg/Mg (0.022 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O2; 

and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 329 of 444

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which PM 

emissions did not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg 

(0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15

mg/dscm at 7% O2.

b. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.0014 kg/hr 

(0.0032 lb/hr).

i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions 

measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8, over the period 

of the initial performance test, do 

not exceed 0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032

lb/hr); and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which 

non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not 

exceed 0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032 lb/hr).

6. New or 

reconstructed large 

tunnel kiln, 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-05 

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 13 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 1.1 E-04

kg/hr (2.4 E-04

lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the 

period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 1.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of fired product or 

13 μg/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which Hg 

emissions did not exceed 1.0 E-05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.1 

E-04 kg/hr (2.4 E-04 lb/hr).

7. New or 

reconstructed small 

tunnel kiln, 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 5.0 E-04 

kg/hr (0.0011 

lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the 

period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired product or 

70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E-04 kg/hr 

(0.0011 lb/hr); and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 330 of 444

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

ii. You establish and have a record of 

the applicable operating limits listed 

in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-

hour performance test during which Hg 

emissions did not exceed 9.9 E-05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2.

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions.

i. Develop a designed firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the periodic kiln. You 

must either program the time and 

temperature cycle into your kiln or 

track each step on a log sheet; and

ii. Label each periodic kiln with the 

maximum load (in tons) of product that 

can be fired in the kiln during a 

single firing cycle; and

iii. Develop maintenance procedures 

for each kiln that, at a minimum,

specify the frequency of inspection 

and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that 

regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and 

controls that regulate firing cycles.

9. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln.

a. Minimize 

dioxin/furan 

emissions.

i. Conduct initial inspection of the 

burners and associated combustion 

controls (as applicable); and

ii. Tune the specific burner type to 

optimize combustion.

As stated in §63.8470, you must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 331 of 444

For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

1. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DLA.

a. Each 

emission limit 

in Table 1 to 

this subpart 

and each 

operating limit 

in Item 1 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for 

tunnel kilns 

equipped with a 

DLA.

i. Collecting the DLA pressure drop data 

according to §63.8450(a); reducing the DLA 

pressure drop data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the 

average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-

hour block period at or above the average

pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test; or continuously monitoring the 

bypass stack damper position at least once every 

15 minutes during normal kiln operation, and 

initiating corrective action within 1 hour after

the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln 

exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and completing 

corrective action in accordance with your OM&M 

plan; and

ii. Verifying that the limestone hopper and 

storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) 

contain adequate limestone by performing a daily 

visual check, which could include one of the 

following: (1) conducting a physical check of 

the hopper; (2) creating a visual access point, 

such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) 

installing a camera in the hopper that provides 

continuous feed to a video monitor in the 

control room; or (4) confirming that load level 

indicators in the hopper are not indicating the 

need for additional limestone; and

iii. Recording the limestone feeder setting 

daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to 

verify that the feeder setting is being 

maintained at or above the level established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; and

iv. Using the same grade of limestone from the 

same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test; maintaining records of the 

source and type of limestone; and

v. Performing VE observations of the DLA stack 

at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; 

maintaining no VE from the DLA stack.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 332 of 444

For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

2. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

a. Each 

emission limit 

in Table 1 to 

this subpart 

and each 

operating limit 

in Item 2 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for 

tunnel kilns 

equipped with 

DIFF or DLS/FF.

i. If you use a bag leak detection system, 

initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a 

bag leak detection system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M 

plan; operating and maintaining the fabric 

filter such that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total operating time 

in a 6-month block reporting period; in 

calculating this operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm 

time is counted; if corrective action is 

required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 

1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to 

initiate corrective action, the alarm time is 

counted as the actual amount of time taken by 

you to initiate corrective action; or performing 

VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at 

the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; and 

maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; 

and

ii. Verifying that lime is free-flowing via a 

load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, 

carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or 

other system; recording all monitor or sensor 

output, and if lime is found not to be free 

flowing, promptly initiating and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M 

plan; recording the feeder setting once during 

each shift of operation to verify that the 

feeder setting is being maintained at or above 

the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

3. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a WS.

a. Each 

emission limit 

in Table 1 to 

this subpart 

and each 

operating limit 

in Item 3 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for 

tunnel kilns 

equipped with 

WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data 

according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber 

pressure drop data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the 

average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average pressure 

drop established during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals

performance test; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 333 of 444

For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data 

according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber 

liquid pH data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the 

average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average scrubber liquid 

pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test; and

iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate 

data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the 

scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining 

the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 

3-hour block period at or above the highest 

average scrubber liquid flow rate established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

performance tests; and

iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber 

water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed 

rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the 

scrubber chemical feed rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining 

the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 

3-hour block period at or above the average 

scrubber chemical feed rate established during 

the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test.

4. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with an 

ACI 

system.

Each emission 

limit in Table 

1 to this 

subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 4 

of Table 2 to 

this subpart 

for tunnel 

kilns equipped 

with ACI 

system.

Collecting the carbon flow rate data according 

to §63.8450(a); reducing the carbon flow rate 

data to 3-hour block averages according to 

§63.8450(a); maintaining the average carbon flow 

rate for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average carbon flow rate established during 

the Hg performance test.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 334 of 444

For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

5. Tunnel 

kiln with 

no add-on 

control

a. Each 

emission limit 

in Table 1 to 

this subpart 

and each 

operating limit 

in Item 5 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for 

tunnel kilns 

with no add-on 

control.

i. Performing VE observations of the stack at 

the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; and 

maintaining no VE from the stack.

ii. If your last calculated total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or 

below the health-based standard in Table 1 to 

this subpart, collecting the kiln process rate 

data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the kiln 

process rate data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the 

average kiln process rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or below the kiln process rate 

determined according to §63.8445(g)(1).

6. 

Periodic 

kiln

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions.

i. Using a designed firing time and temperature 

cycle for each product produced in the periodic 

kiln; and

ii. For each firing load, documenting the total 

tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure 

that it is not greater than the maximum load

identified in Item 1.a.ii of Table 3 to this 

subpart; and

iii. Following maintenance procedures for each 

kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency 

of inspection and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that regulate airto-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate 

firing cycles; and

iv. Developing and maintaining records for each 

periodic kiln, as specified in §63.8490.

7. Tunnel 

kiln

a. Minimize 

dioxin/furan 

emissions

i. Maintaining and inspecting the burners and 

associated combustion controls (as applicable) 

and tuning the specific burner type to optimize 

combustion no later than 36 calendar months 

after the previous tune-up; and

ii. Maintaining records of burner tune-ups used 

to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan 

work practice standard; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 335 of 444

For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

iii. Submitting a report of most recent tune-up 

conducted with compliance report.

As stated in §63.8485, you must submit each report that 

applies to you according to the following table:

Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

You must 

submit... The report must contain...

You must submit 

the report...

1. A 

compliance 

report.

a. If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitations (emission limits, 

operating limits) that apply to you, a 

statement that there were no deviations 

from the emission limitations during the 

reporting period. If there were no periods 

during which the CMS was out-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, a statement 

that there were no periods during which 

the CMS was out-of-control during the 

reporting period.

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8485(b).

b. If you have a deviation from any 

emission limitation (emission limit, 

operating limit) during the reporting 

period, the report must contain the 

information in §63.8485(d) or (e). If 

there were periods during which the CMS 

was out-of-control, as specified in your 

OM&M plan, the report must contain the 

information in §63.8485(e).

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8485(b).

As stated in §63.8505, you must comply with the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according 

to the following table:

Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 336 of 444

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.1 Applicability. Initial applicability 

determination; 

applicability after 

standard established; 

permit requirements; 

extensions, 

notifications.

Yes.

§63.2 Definitions. Definitions for part 

63 standards.

Yes.

§63.3 Units and 

Abbreviations.

Units and 

abbreviations for part 

63 standards.

Yes.

§63.4 Prohibited 

Activities.

Compliance date; 

circumvention; 

severability.

Yes.

§63.5 Construction/

Reconstruction.

Applicability; 

applications; 

approvals.

Yes.

§63.6(a) Applicability. General Provisions 

(GP) apply unless 

compliance extension; 

GP apply to area 

sources that become 

major.

Yes.

§63.6(b)(1)-(4) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at 

effective date; 3 

years after effective 

date; upon startup; 10 

years after 

construction or 

reconstruction 

commences for section 

112(f).

Yes.

§63.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if 

commenced construction 

or reconstruction 

after proposal.

Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved]. No.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 337 of 444

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.6(b)(7) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

Area Sources 

That Become 

Major.

Area sources that 

become major must 

comply with major 

source standards 

immediately upon 

becoming major, 

regardless of whether 

required to comply 

when they were area 

sources.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(1)-(2) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing 

Sources.

Comply according to 

date in subpart, which 

must be no later than 

3 years after 

effective date; for 

section 112(f) 

standards, comply 

within 90 days of 

effective date unless 

compliance extension.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)-(4) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(c)(5) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing Area 

Sources That 

Become Major.

Area sources that 

become major must 

comply with major 

source standards by

date indicated in 

subpart or by 

equivalent time period 

(for example, 3 

years).

Yes.

§63.6(d) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(1)(i) Operation & 

Maintenance.

General Duty to 

minimize emissions.

No. See 

§63.8420(b) for 

general duty 

requirement.

§63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation & 

Maintenance.

Requirement to correct 

malfunctions ASAP.

No.

§63.6(e)(1)(iii) Operation &

Maintenance.

Operation and 

maintenance 

requirements

enforceable 

independent of 

emissions limitations.

Yes.

§63.6(e)(2) [Reserved]. No.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 338 of 444

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.6(e)(3) Startup,

Shutdown, and

Malfunction

Plan (SSMP).

Requirement for 

startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) and 

SSMP; content of SSMP. 

No.

§63.6(f)(1) Compliance 

Except During 

SSM.

You must comply with 

emission standards at 

all times except 

during SSM.

No.

§63.6(f)(2)-(3) Methods for 

Determining 

Compliance.

Compliance based on 

performance test, 

operation and 

maintenance plans, 

records, inspection.

Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative

Standard.

Procedures for getting 

an alternative 

standard.

Yes.

§63.6(h) Opacity/VE

Standards.

Requirements for 

opacity and VE 

standards.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.6(i) Compliance 

Extension.

Procedures and 

criteria for 

Administrator to grant 

compliance extension.

Yes.

§63.6(j) Presidential 

Compliance 

Exemption.

President may exempt 

source category.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(1)-(2) Performance 

Test Dates.

Dates for conducting 

initial performance 

testing and other 

compliance 

demonstrations for 

emission limits and 

work practice 

standards; must 

conduct 180 days after 

first subject to rule.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(3) Section 114 

Authority.

Administrator may 

require a performance 

test under CAA section 

114 at any time.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(4) Notification of 

Delay in 

Performance 

Testing Due To 

Force Majeure.

Must notify 

Administrator of delay 

in performance testing 

due to force majeure.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 339 of 444

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.7(b)(1) Notification of 

Performance 

Test.

Must notify 

Administrator 60 days 

before the test.

Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of 

Rescheduling.

Must notify 

Administrator 5 days 

before scheduled date 

of rescheduled date.

Yes.

§63.7(c) Quality 

Assurance(QA)/ 

Test Plan.

Requirements; test 

plan approval 

procedures; 

performance audit 

requirements; internal 

and external QA 

procedures for 

testing.

Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing 

Facilities.

Requirements for 

testing facilities.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Cannot conduct 

performance tests 

during SSM; not a 

violation to exceed 

standard during SSM.

No, §63.8445 

specifies 

requirements.

§63.7(e)(2)-(3) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Must conduct according 

to subpart and EPA 

test methods unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative; must have 

at least three test 

runs of at least 1 

hour each; compliance 

is based on arithmetic 

mean of three runs; 

conditions when data 

from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under 

Section 114

Administrator's 

authority to require 

testing under section 

114 of the Act.

Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative

Test Method.

Procedures by which 

Administrator can 

grant approval to use 

an alternative test 

method.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 340 of 444

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.7(g) Performance 

Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data 

in performance test 

report; must submit 

performance test data 

60 days after end of 

test with the 

notification of 

compliance status.

Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of 

Tests.

Procedures for 

Administrator to waive 

performance test.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability 

of Monitoring

Requirements.

Subject to all 

monitoring 

requirements in 

subpart.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(2) Performance 

Specifications.

Performance 

Specifications in 

appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No.

§63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with 

Flares.

Requirements for 

flares in §63.11 

apply.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct 

monitoring according 

to standard unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative.

Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)-(3) Multiple 

Effluents and 

Multiple 

Monitoring 

Systems.

Specific requirements 

for installing and 

reporting on 

monitoring systems.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring 

System 

Operation and 

Maintenance.

Maintenance consistent 

with good air 

pollution control 

practices.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and 

Predictable 

SSM.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

described in SSMP.

No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in 

SSMP.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

not described in SSMP.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 341 of 444

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Requirements.

How Administrator 

determines if source 

complying with 

operation and 

maintenance 

requirements.

No.

§63.8(c)(2)-(3) Monitoring 

System 

Installation.

Must install to get 

representative 

emission and parameter 

measurements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS 

Requirements.

Requirements for CMS. No, §63.8450 

specifies 

requirements.

§63.8(c)(5) Continuous 

Opacity 

Monitoring 

System (COMS) 

Minimum 

Procedures.

COMS minimum 

procedures.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(c)(6) CMS 

Requirements.

Zero and high level 

calibration check 

requirements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(7)-(8) CMS 

Requirements.

Out-of-control 

periods.

Yes.

§63.8(d) CMS Quality 

Control.

Requirements for CMS 

quality control.

Yes.

§63.8(e) CMS Performance

Evaluation.

Requirements for CMS 

performance 

evaluation.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(1)-(5) Alternative

Monitoring

Method.

Procedures for 

Administrator to 

approve alternative 

monitoring.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to

Relative 

Accuracy Test.

Procedures for 

Administrator to 

approve alternative 

relative accuracy test 

for continuous 

emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS).

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(g) Data Reduction. COMS and CEMS data 

reduction 

requirements.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(a) Notification

Requirements.

Applicability; State 

delegation.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 342 of 444

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.9(b) Initial 

Notifications.

Requirements for 

initial notifications.

Yes.

§63.9(c) Request for

Compliance

Extension.

Can request if cannot 

comply by date or if 

installed BACT/LAER.

Yes.

§63.9(d) Notification of

Special

Compliance

Requirements

for New Source.

For sources that 

commence construction 

between proposal and 

promulgation and want 

to comply 3 years 

after effective date.

Yes.

§63.9(e) Notification of 

Performance

Test.

Notify Administrator 

60 days prior.

Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of 

VE/Opacity

Test.

Notify Administrator 

30 days prior.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(g)(1) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of 

performance 

evaluation.

Yes

§63.9(g)(2)-(3) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of COMS 

data use; notification 

that relative accuracy 

alternative criterion 

were exceeded.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(h) Notification of 

Compliance

Status.

Contents; submittal 

requirements.

Yes.

§63.9(i) Adjustment of

Submittal 

Deadlines.

Procedures for 

Administrator to 

approve change in when 

notifications must be 

submitted.

Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in 

Previous 

Information.

Must submit within 15 

days after the change.

Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Applicability; general 

information.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(1) General 

Recordkeeping 

Requirements.

General requirements. Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 343 of 444

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

occurrence and 

duration of startups 

and shutdowns.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

failures to meet a 

standard.

No. See 

§63.8490(c)(2)

for 

recordkeeping of 

(1) date, time 

and duration; 

(2) listing of 

affected source 

or equipment, 

and an estimate 

of the volume of 

each regulated 

pollutant 

emitted over the 

standard; and 

(3) actions to 

minimize 

emissions and 

correct the 

failure.

§63.10(b)(2)(iii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Maintenance records. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(v)

Records Related 

to SSM.

Actions taken to 

minimize emissions 

during SSM.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(xii) and (xiv)

CMS Records. Records when CMS is 

malfunctioning, 

inoperative or out-ofcontrol.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records. Records when using 

alternative to 

relative accuracy 

test.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(b)(3) Records. Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes.

§63.10(c)(1)-(15) Records. Additional records for 

CMS

No, §§63.8425 

and 63.8490 

specify 

requirements.

§63.10(d)(1) and 

(2)

General 

Reporting

Requirements.

Requirements for 

reporting; performance 

test results 

reporting.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 344 of 444

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§63.10(d)(3) Reporting 

Opacity or VE

Observations.

Requirements for 

reporting opacity and 

VE.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(d)(4) Progress 

Reports.

Must submit progress 

reports on schedule if 

under compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.10(d)(5) SSM

Reports.

Contents and 

submission.

No. See 

§63.8485(f) for 

malfunction 

reporting 

requirements.

§63.10(e)(1)-(3) Additional CMS

Reports.

Requirements for CMS 

reporting.

No, §§63.8425 

and 63.8485 

specify 

requirements.

§63.10(e)(4) Reporting COMS 

data.

Requirements for 

reporting COMS data 

with performance test 

data.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(f) Waiver for

Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Procedures for 

Administrator to 

waive.

Yes.

§63.11 Flares. Requirement for 

flares.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.12 Delegation. State authority to 

enforce standards.

Yes.

§63.13 Addresses. Addresses for reports, 

notifications, 

requests.

Yes.

§63.14 Incorporation 

by Reference.

Materials incorporated 

by reference.

Yes.

§63.15 Availability of 

Information.

Information 

availability; 

confidential 

information.

Yes.

§63.16 Performance 

Track 

Provisions.

Requirements for 

Performance Track 

member facilities.

Yes.

4. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart KKKKK to read as 

follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 345 of 444

Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?

63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?

63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 346 of 444

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?

63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?

63.8640 What records must I keep?

63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits

Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits

Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests

Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors

Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart KKKKK

What This Subpart Covers

§63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission limitations and 

work practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

emitted from clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. This 

subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and 

continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work 

practice standards.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 347 of 444

§63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 

clay ceramics manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or 

is part of a major source of HAP emissions according to the 

criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site 

that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other 

pressed tile, or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, 

and various additives; form the processed materials into tile or 

sanitaryware shapes; and dry and fire the ceramic products. 

Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products.

(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary 

source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area 

under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any 

single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per 

year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 

tons) or more per year.

§63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or 

reconstructed affected source at a clay ceramics manufacturing 

facility.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 348 of 444

(b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed ceramic tile 

roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, sanitaryware shuttle 

kiln, ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying, sanitaryware 

glaze spray booth, ceramic tile spray dryer, and floor tile 

press dryer is an affected source.

(c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this 

subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 

section.

(1) Kilns that are used exclusively for refiring.

(2) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products.

(3) Glaze spray operations that use wet glazes containing 

less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis).

(4) Raw material processing and handling.

(5) Wall tile press dryers.

(6) Sanitaryware ware dryers.

(d) A source is a new affected source if construction of 

the affected source began after [insert date of publication in 

the Federal Register], and you met the applicability criteria at 

the time you began construction.

(e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the 

criteria as defined in §63.2.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 349 of 444

(f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 

reconstructed.

§63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you 

must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(2) of this section.

(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is 

after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register] but 

before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with 

the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards 

in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 

[THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your 

affected source.

(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must 

comply with the emission limitations and work practice standards 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 350 of 444

for existing sources in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no 

later than [THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) If you have an existing area source that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 

source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by 

reconstructing, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for 

which construction or reconstruction was commenced after [insert 

date of publication in the Federal Register]) that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 

source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8630 

according to the schedule in §63.8630 and in subpart A of this 

part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 

required to comply with the emission limitations in this 

subpart.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 351 of 444

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

§63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

§63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

(a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to 

this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and 

collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and 

demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and 

collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits 

in Table 2 to this subpart.

(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement 

manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 352 of 444

emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(b) To meet the work practice standards for affected 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns, you must comply with the 

requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

(c) To meet the work practice standards for affected 

sources during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply 

with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements

§63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations 

(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, 

except during periods of routine control device maintenance as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, 

you must operate and maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 

general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make 

any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 353 of 444

the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of 

whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and

maintenance requirements will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. During the period between the 

compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8545 

and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) 

(e.g., continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been 

installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have 

been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and 

maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment.

(c) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

prepare and implement a written operation, maintenance, and 

monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in 

§63.8575.

(d) If you own or operate an affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this 

subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control 

device for that affected source, you may bypass the source 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 354 of 444

control device and continue operating the affected source upon 

approval by the Administrator provided you satisfy the 

conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section.

(1) You must request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption from the Administrator. Your request must justify the 

need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the 

time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe 

the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance 

activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished 

during source shutdowns, describe how you plan to minimize 

emissions to the greatest extent possible during the 

maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the 

Administrator.

(2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must 

not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each 

affected source.

(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance 

exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be 

incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected 

source’s title V permit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 355 of 444

(4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when 

the affected source is operating and the control device is 

offline.

(5) You must minimize the time period during which the 

affected source is operating and the control device is offline.

(e) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject 

to the work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart, you must be in compliance with that work practice 

standard at all times, except during periods of natural gas 

curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available.

(f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of 

subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 9 to this 

subpart.

§63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

(a) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that 

includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your 

OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting 

authority upon request.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 356 of 444

(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the 

information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.

(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of 

monitoring device that will be used, and the operating 

parameters that will be monitored.

(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that 

the parameter values will be determined and recorded.

(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous 

compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8555. The limits 

must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded 

during performance tests.

(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and 

long-term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and 

inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations.

(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or 

downstream of the last APCD).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 357 of 444

(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 

interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal 

analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system.

(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).

(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of 

monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).

(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance 

procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d).

(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8635 and 63.8640.

(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter 

deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) 

through (iii) of this section.

(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating 

parameter deviation.

(ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and 

returning the operating parameters to the allowable limits.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 358 of 444

(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation 

began and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and 

completed.

(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.

(13) If you operate an affected source and you plan to take 

the source control device out of service for routine 

maintenance, as specified in §63.8570(d), the procedures 

specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the 

affected source during periods of routine maintenance of the 

source control device when the affected source is operating and 

the control device is offline.

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period 

of routine maintenance on the source control device when the 

affected source is operating and the control device is offline.

(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan 

require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating 

limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the 

Administrator as specified in §63.7(b).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 359 of 444

(2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate 

that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the 

revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the 

performance test results and the revised operating limits as 

part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under 

§63.9(h).

(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance

procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new 

performance test.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

§63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

For each affected source that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct 

performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance 

date that is specified for your source in §63.8545 and according 

to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2).

§63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 

operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial 

performance test.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 360 of 444

(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to 

change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in 

your OM&M plan.

§63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must 

install and calibrate all monitoring equipment.

(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in 

Table 4 to this subpart.

(d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative performance of the affected 

source for the period being tested. Representative conditions 

exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction.

The owner or operator must record the process information that 

is necessary to document operating conditions during the test 

and include in such record an explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 361 of 444

or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests.

(e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for 

each performance test required in this section, as specified in 

§63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.

(f) You must use the data gathered during the performance 

test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this 

section to determine compliance with the emission limitations.

(1) To determine compliance with the production-based 

particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits for 

ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per 

unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:

P

ER MP = (Eq. 1)

Where:

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of 

pollutant per megagram (ton) of fired product

ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each 

performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour

P = production rate during each performance test run, 

megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 362 of 444

(2) To determine compliance with the PM emission limits for 

ceramic tile glaze lines with glaze spraying and sanitaryware 

glaze spray booths in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

calculate your mass emissions per unit of glaze sprayed for each 

test run using Equation 2:

G

ER MG = (Eq. 2)

Where:

MG = mass per unit of glaze application, kilograms (pounds) of 

PM per megagram (ton) of glaze sprayed

ER = mass emission rate of PM during each performance test 

run, kilograms (pounds) per hour

G = glaze application rate during each performance test run, 

megagrams (tons) of glaze sprayed per hour.

(3) To determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission 

limits for tunnel and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray dryers, 

and floor tile press dryers in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

calculate the sum of the 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

(2,3,7,8-TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQs) for each test run using 

Equation 3:

∑( ) =

= ×

n

i

TEQ Ci TEFi

1

(Eq. 3)

Where:

TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 363 of 444

Ci = concentration of dioxin or furan congener i, nanograms 

per dry standard cubic meter

TEFi = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for congener 

i, as provided in Table 5 to this subpart.

n = number of congeners included in TEQ

(4) To determine compliance with the health-based standard 

for acid gas HAP for clay ceramics manufacturing facilities in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must:

(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF and HCl 

for each tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation 

4:





 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E E E (Eq. 4)

Where:

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour

EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour

EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your 

facility, sum the HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel or roller 

kilns at the facility using Equation 5:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 364 of 444

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

(Eq. 5)

Where:

Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of all kilns at 

facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility

(iii) Compare this value to the health-based standard in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(g) You must establish each site-specific operating limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart.

(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your tunnel 

or roller kiln, you must calculate the maximum potential HClequivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller 

kiln at your facility using Equation 6:

( ) ( ) ( ) 



 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC Emax Cap MP MP (Eq. 6)

Where:

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour

Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of fired 

product per hour

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 365 of 444

kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms 

(pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your 

facility, sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for 

all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility using Equation 7:

∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max (Eq. 7)

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for total of 

all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of kilns at facility

(iii) If you have a single tunnel or roller kiln at your 

facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the maximum process 

rate for the kiln using Equation 8 that would ensure the total 

facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or 

below the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 366 of 444

become your operating limit for process rate and must be 

included in your OM&M plan.

( ) ( ) 



 





















+

=

HF

HCl

iHCl iHF

i

RfC

RfC MP MP

HCl - eq Pmax (Eq. 8)

Where:

Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per 

hour

HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 62 

kilograms (140 pounds) per hour

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired 

product

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms 

(pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic 

meter

(iv) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your 

facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the combination of 

maximum process rates that would ensure that total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HClequivalent limit. The maximum process rates would become your 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 367 of 444

operating limits for process rate and must be included in your 

OM&M plan.

(h) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this 

subpart or that is using process changes as a means of meeting 

the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet 

the requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of 

this section.

(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring 

procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification 

of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iv) of this section.

(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process 

changes.

(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will 

be used.

(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.

(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will 

be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance 

with the operating limits.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 368 of 444

(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the 

performance test based on the information included in the 

approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as 

applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart.

§63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS 

according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according 

to your OM&M plan.

(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of 

operation for each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid 

hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally 

spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more 

than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a 

routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in 

§63.8570(d)).

(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all 

recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 369 of 444

as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate 

the average for each 3-hour average period, you must have at 

least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period (not 

including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control 

periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance 

covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as 

specified in §63.8570(d)).

(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 

validation check.

(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment 

including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for 

routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.

(b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a 

representative flowrate.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate.

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor 

calibration check.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 370 of 444

(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section.

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a 

position that provides a representative measurement of the 

pressure.

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, 

and internal and external corrosion.

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 

0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range.

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not 

plugged.

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly 

and transducer calibration monthly.

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration 

checks or install a new pressure sensor.

(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, 

all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical 

connections for leakage.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 371 of 444

(d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of pH.

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative

of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points 

every 8 hours of process operation.

(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity 

and all electrical connections for continuity.

(e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.

(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be 

installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the 

“Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14). Other 

types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, 

calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations.

(2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 372 of 444

concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter 

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.

(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an 

output of relative PM loadings.

(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a 

device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor.

(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an 

audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an 

increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is 

detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by 

plant operating personnel.

(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak 

detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, 

the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric 

filter.

(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting 

the range and the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time 

according to section 5.0 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 373 of 444

Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997)

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14).

(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the 

sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in your 

OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more 

than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-

day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric 

filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric filter is 

in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the 

“Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14). Record 

each adjustment.

(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, 

and validation check.

(f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate 

measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that 

provides a representative feed rate measurement.

(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 374 of 444

(g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that 

provides a representative temperature.

(2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 

1 percent of the temperature being measured.

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.

(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring 

procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8595(h) and 

63.8(f).

§63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to 

you according to Table 6 to this subpart.

(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the 

requirements in §63.8595 and Table 4 to this subpart.

(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 

containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 

according to the requirements in §63.8630(e).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 375 of 444

Continuous Compliance Requirements

§63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this 

section.

(b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated 

repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero 

and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect 

data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected 

source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified 

in §63.8570(d) when the affected source is operating.

(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring 

malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or 

required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of 

calculating data averages. A monitoring malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures 

that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 

operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data 

collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 376 of 444

averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data 

and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements.

§63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according 

to the methods specified in Table 7 to this subpart.

(b) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this 

subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting 

the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as 

required in §63.8595(h)(2) according to the methods specified in 

your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as 

described in §§63.8595(h)(1) and 63.8(f).

(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet 

each emission limit and operating limit in this subpart that 

applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 377 of 444

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance. These 

instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this 

subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 

requirements in §63.8635.

(d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device 

maintenance covered by an approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption according to §63.8570(d) are not 

violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's 

satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

(e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible 

emissions (VE) from tunnel or roller kilns that are uncontrolled 

or equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF, or other dry control device by 

monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements 

in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack 

according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the 

affected source is operating under normal conditions. The 

duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 378 of 444

(2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted 

using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily 

Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the 

frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that

kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must 

promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a 

daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed 

in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again 

decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.

(3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must report these 

deviations by following the requirements in §63.8635.

Notifications, Reports, and Records

§63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.7(b) 

and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) 

that apply to you, by the dates specified.

(b) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your 

affected source before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 379 of 444

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must 

submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days 

after [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new 

or reconstructed affected source or affected source described in 

§63.8540(d) or §63.8540(e) on or after [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later 

than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.

(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you 

must submit a written notification of intent to conduct a 

performance test at least 60 calendar days before the 

performance test is scheduled to begin, as required in 

§63.7(b)(1).

(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or 

other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 

and 6 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (3) of this section.

(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a 

performance test conducted according to the requirements in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 380 of 444

Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of 

Compliance Status, including the performance test results, 

before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following 

the completion of the performance test, according to 

§63.10(d)(2).

(2) In addition to the requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you 

must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of 

this section in your Notification of Compliance Status:

(i) The operating limit parameter values established for 

each affected source with supporting documentation and a 

description of the procedure used to establish the values.

(ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag 

leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting 

documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8600(e).

(3) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 6 

to this subpart that does not include a performance test (i.e., 

compliance demonstration for the work practice standard), you 

must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the 

close of business on the 30th calendar day following the 

completion of the compliance demonstration.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 381 of 444

(f) If you request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption according to §63.8570(d), you must submit your request 

for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance 

date.

(g) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject 

to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to 

this subpart, and you intend to use a fuel other than natural 

gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a 

notification of alternative fuel use within 48 hours of the 

declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply 

interruption, as defined in §63.8665. The notification must 

include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(5) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Identification of the affected kiln.

(3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent 

fuel, including the date when the natural gas curtailment was 

declared or the natural gas supply interruption began.

(4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use.

(5) Dates when the alternative fuel use is expected to 

begin and end.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 382 of 444

§63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 8 to this subpart 

that applies to you.

(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different 

schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must 

submit each report by the date in Table 8 to this subpart and as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) The first compliance report must cover the period 

beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your 

affected source in §63.8545 and ending on June 30 or December 

31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For 

example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first 

semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on 

December 31.

(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 

semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or 

the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 383 of 444

(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 

regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if 

the permitting authority has established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent 

compliance reports according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of according to the dates in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

(c) The compliance report must contain the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the 

statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and 

complete.

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 

reporting period.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 384 of 444

(4) A description of control device maintenance performed 

while the control device was offline and the affected source 

controlled by the control device was operating, including the 

information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of 

this section.

(i) The date and time when the control device was shut down 

and restarted.

(ii) Identification of the affected source that was 

operating and the number of hours that the affected source 

operated while the control device was offline.

(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device 

maintenance was included in your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63.8570(d). If 

the control device maintenance was included in your approved 

routine control device maintenance exemption, then you must 

report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) 

of this section.

(A) The total amount of time that the affected source 

controlled by the control device operated during the current 

semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual 

compliance period.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 385 of 444

(B) The amount of time that each affected source controlled 

by the control device operated while the control device was 

offline for maintenance covered under the routine control device 

maintenance exemption during the current semiannual compliance 

period and during the previous semiannual compliance period.

(C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs 

(c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual 

percent of affected source operating uptime during which the 

control device was offline for routine maintenance using 

Equation 9.

(100) p c

p c

SU +SU

DT +DT

RM= (Eq. 9)

Where:

RM = Annual percentage of affected source uptime during which 

control device was offline for routine control device 

maintenance

DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual 

compliance period

DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual 

compliance period

SUp = Affected source uptime for the previous semiannual 

compliance period

SUc = Affected source uptime for the current semiannual 

compliance period
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 386 of 444

(5) If there are no deviations from any emission 

limitations (emission limits or operating limits) or work 

practice standards that apply to you, the compliance report must 

contain a statement that there were no deviations from the 

emission limitations or work practice standards during the 

reporting period.

(6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was outof-control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report 

must contain a statement that there were no periods during which 

the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.

(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected 

source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain 

the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3) of this section. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance.

(1) The total operating time of each affected source during 

the reporting period and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 387 of 444

(2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and 

cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 

applicable, and the corrective action taken.

(3) The applicable operating limit or work practice 

standard from which you deviated and either the parameter 

monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you 

deviated from the work practice standard.

(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected 

source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) 

of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 

routine control device maintenance.

(1) The total operating time of each affected source during 

the reporting period and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except 

for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.

(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-ofcontrol, including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 388 of 444

(4) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during routine 

control device maintenance covered in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption or during another period, 

and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if 

applicable).

(5) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit during the deviation, and a 

description of the method used to estimate the emissions.

(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to 

a deviation.

(7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during 

the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the 

total source operating time during that reporting period.

(8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations 

during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes.

(9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during 

the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that reporting 

period.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 389 of 444

(10) A brief description of the process units.

(11) A brief description of the CMS.

(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.

(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or 

control equipment since the last reporting period.

(f) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, 

the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded.

(2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected facility to minimize 

emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b), including actions 

taken to correct a malfunction.

(g) If you have obtained a title V operating permit 

according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report 

all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual 

monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 390 of 444

according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or as part of, 

the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the 

compliance report includes all required information concerning 

deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating 

limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any 

obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual 

monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will 

not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority.

(h) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject 

to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to 

this subpart, and you use a fuel other than natural gas or 

equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a report 

of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating 

the use of the alternative fuel. The report must include the 

information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (6) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Identification of the affected kiln.

(3) Reason for using the alternative fuel.

(4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected 

kiln.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 391 of 444

(5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and 

ended.

(6) Amount of alternative fuel used.

(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test

following the procedures specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or 

(i)(2) of this section.

(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) at the 

time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance 

test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 

Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp).)

Performance test data must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Instead of 

submitting performance test data in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alternate 

electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup 

language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, once the 

XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 392 of 444

performance test information being submitted is confidential 

business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT (or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT Web site once the XML schema is available), including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive,

or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

AdministratorGroup Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 

4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file (or 

alternate file) with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the 

EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.

(2) For data collected using test methods that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site

at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the 

performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address 

listed in §63.13.

§63.8640 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 393 of 444

(1) A copy of each notification and report that you 

submitted to comply with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial Notification or 

Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according 

to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

(2) Records of performance tests as required in 

§63.10(b)(2)(viii).

(3) Records relating to control device maintenance and 

documentation of your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption, if you request such an exemption under 

§63.8570(d).

(b) You must keep the records required in Table 7 to this 

subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission 

limitation and work practice standard that applies to you.

(c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (10) of this section.

(1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each 

alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was 

initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of 

the alarm and the corrective action taken.

(2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter 

value, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 394 of 444

explanation of the cause of the deviation, actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b) and the 

corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation, and whether the deviation 

occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted 

over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions.

(3) For each affected source, records of production rates 

on a fired-product weight basis.

(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 

procedures.

(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

(6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any 

revisions, with records documenting conformance.

(7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs 

(c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section to document proper 

operation of your sanitaryware shuttle kiln.

(i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for 

each product produced in each sanitaryware shuttle kiln. If all 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 395 of 444

shuttle kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy 

may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be 

assigned to use in log sheets.

(ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log that details 

the type of product fired in each batch, the corresponding time 

and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of 

whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired.

(iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the 

actual tonnage of product fired in the shuttle kiln and an 

indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage 

for that specific kiln.

(8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance requirements of the sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart.

(9) For periods of startup, records of the date, time, and 

duration of each startup period, logs of the kiln or dryer 

exhaust temperature at the time the first ceramics were placed 

in the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature 

when the kiln or dryer exhaust stopped bypassing the control 

device. For periods of shutdown, records of the date, time, and 

duration of each shutdown period, logs of the kiln or dryer 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 396 of 444

exhaust temperature at the time the last ceramics were placed in 

the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature 

when the kiln or dryer exhaust began bypassing the control 

device.

(10) For each malfunction, records of the following 

information:

(i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment.

(ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation.

§63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily 

available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1).

(b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 

for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 

maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.

(c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years 

after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 397 of 444

corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). 

You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information

§63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 9 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

§63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the 

U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or 

tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated 

authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that 

agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and 

enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority 

of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph 

(c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the 

U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal 

agency.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 398 of 444

(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, 

local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) of this section.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability 

requirements in §§63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date 

requirements in §63.8545, and the non-opacity emission 

limitations in §63.8555.

(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under 

§63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90.

(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) 

and as defined in §63.90.

(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and 

reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90.

(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting 

to the EPA required by this subpart.

§63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air 

Act, in §63.2, and in this section as follows:

Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment 

that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the 

air.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 399 of 444

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric 

filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection 

system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that 

operates on triboelectric, light-scattering, lighttransmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings.

Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site 

that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other 

pressed tile, or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, 

and various additives, form the processed materials into tile or 

sanitaryware shapes, and dry and fire the ceramic products.

Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products.

Deviation means any instance in which an affected source 

subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a 

source:

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established 

by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission 

limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice 

standard; or
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 400 of 444

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 

implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any 

affected source required to obtain such a permit.

Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the sum 

of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 

3 of this subpart.

Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent 

into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.

Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or 

other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric 

filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of 

the sorbent.

Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating 

limit.

Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering 

a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.

Glaze means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent 

material applied to ceramic products before firing.

Glaze line means a production line for glazing ceramic 

products, which includes glaze spraying (typically comprised of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 401 of 444

one or more glaze spray booths) and other types of glazing 

operations (e.g., dipping, flooding, centrifugal disc glazing, 

curtain coating).

Glaze spray booth means a type of equipment used for 

spraying glaze on ceramic products.

Initial startup means the time at which the kiln first 

reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the 

kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source 

begins firing clay ceramics, whichever is earlier.

Kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of clay 

ceramics, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in 

one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). 

If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design 

capacity is considered to be the capacity following 

modifications.

Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this 

subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total 

particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8), and 

as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates 

including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 402 of 444

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium.

Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption

means a period of time during which the supply of natural gas to 

an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of 

the facility. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural 

gas does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption.

Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that 

is under common control, including properties that are separated 

only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control 

includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the 

same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination 

thereof.

Responsible official means responsible official as defined 

in 40 CFR 70.2.

Roller kiln means a continuous kiln similar to a tunnel 

kiln except that the unfired ceramic product travels through the 

kiln in a single layer on rollers. In the clay ceramics source 

category, roller kilns are used at ceramic tile manufacturing 

plants.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 403 of 444

Shuttle kiln means a batch firing kiln that is designed 

with a removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using 

hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress. In the clay 

ceramics source category, shuttle kilns are used at sanitaryware 

manufacturing plants.

Spray dryer means a drying chamber used to form a freeflowing powder from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to 

improve handling and compaction. In the clay ceramics source 

category, spray dryers are used at ceramic tile manufacturing 

plants.

Startup means the setting in operation of an affected 

source and starting the production process.

Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller 

kiln that is used to fire clay ceramics. In the clay ceramics 

source category, tunnel kilns are used at sanitaryware 

manufacturing plants.

Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may 

include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. 

Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 404 of 444

Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work 

practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is 

promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each emission limit in 

the following table that applies to you:

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits

For each... You must meet the following emission limits...

1. Collection of all 

tunnel or roller 

kilns at facility

HF and HCl emissions must not exceed 62 kilograms per 

hour (kg/hr) (140 pounds per hour (lb/hr)) HCl 

equivalent, under the health-based standard, as 

determined using Equations 4 and 5.

2. Existing floor 

tile roller kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.090 kilogram per 

megagram (kg/Mg) (0.18 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired 

product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 4.6 nanograms 

per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 7% O2.

3. Existing wall tile 

roller kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.099 kg/Mg 

(0.20 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.7 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.16 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

4. Existing firstfire sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg 

(0.33 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

5. Existing tile 

glaze line with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) 

of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 405 of 444

6. Existing 

sanitaryware manual 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

7. Existing 

sanitaryware spray 

machine glaze 

application

PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

8. Existing 

sanitaryware robot 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

9. Existing floor 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% 

O2.

10. Existing wall 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

11. Existing floor 

tile press dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

12. New or 

reconstructed floor 

tile roller kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg 

(0.027 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.9 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E05 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

13. New or 

reconstructed wall 

tile roller kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.15 kg/Mg 

(0.27 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.5 E-06 kg/Mg (3.1 E06 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.160.23 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

14. New or 

reconstructed firstfire sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg 

(0.095 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.2 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

15. New or 

reconstructed tile 

glaze line with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg 

(0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

16. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware manual 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 406 of 444

17. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware spray 

machine glaze 

application

PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

18. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware robot 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

19. New or 

reconstructed floor 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

20. New or 

reconstructed wall 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

21. New or 

reconstructed floor 

tile press dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each operating limit 

in the following table that applies to you:

Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits

For each... You must...

1. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective 

action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and 

complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; 

operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is 

not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating 

time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE 

from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and

b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and 

to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; 

maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product 

basis) at or above the level established during the 

performance test for continuous injection systems.

2. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average pressure drop established 

during the PM performance test; and

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH 

established during the HF/HCl performance test; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 407 of 444

c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-

hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber 

liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM 

performance tests; and

d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the 

average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate 

established during the HF/HCl performance test.

3. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

an ACI 

system.

Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the highest average carbon flow rate 

established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests.

4. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission 

limit without 

an ACI 

system.

If you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit 

without an ACI system, maintain the average kiln operating 

temperature for each 3-hour block period at or above the 

average temperature established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

5. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

with no addon control.

a. Maintain no VE from the stack; and

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process 

rate determined according to §63.8595(g)(1); and

c. Maintain the average kiln operating temperature for each 3-

hour block period at or below the average temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan performance test.

6. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

a FF.

If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective 

action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and 

complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; 

operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is 

not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating 

time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE 

from the FF stack; and

7. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average pressure drop established 

during the PM performance test; and

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-

hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow 

rate established during the PM performance test.

8. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

Conduct daily inspections to verify the presence of water flow 

to the wet control system; and

Conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and 

control equipment for leaks; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 408 of 444

a water 

curtain.

Conduct annual inspections of the interior of the control 

equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural 

integrity and condition of the control equipment.

9. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

baffles.

Conduct an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm 

the baffles are in place.

10. Spray 

dryer.

Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average temperature established 

during the dioxin/furan performance test.

11. Floor 

tile press 

dryer.

Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3-hour 

block period at or below the average temperature established 

during the dioxin/furan performance test.

As stated in §63.8555, you must comply with each work 

practice standard in the following table that applies to you:

Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

For each... You must...

According to one of the following 

requirements...

1. Existing, new, 

or reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln.

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the 

kiln fuel, except during periods of natural 

gas curtailment or supply interruption, as 

defined in §63.8665; and

ii. Develop and use a designed firing time 

and temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the sanitaryware shuttle kiln. 

You must either program the time and 

temperature cycle into your kiln or track 

each step on a log sheet; and

iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln 

with the maximum load (in tons) of product 

that can be fired in the kiln during a 

single firing cycle; and

iv. For each firing load, document the 

total tonnage of product placed in the kiln 

to ensure that it is not greater than the 

maximum load identified in item 1.a.iii; 

and

v. Develop and follow maintenance 

procedures for each kiln that, at a 

minimum, specify the frequency of 

inspection and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that regulate 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 409 of 444

air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that 

regulate firing cycles; and

vi. Develop and maintain records for each 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln, as specified in 

§63.8640.

2. Existing, new 

or reconstructed 

kiln or dryer 

during periods of 

startup

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or 

dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature reaches 204 °C (400 °F); and

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, 

begin venting the exhaust from the kiln or 

dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln 

or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C 

(400 °F).

3. Existing, new 

or reconstructed 

kiln or dryer 

during periods of 

shutdown

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or 

dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature falls to 149 °C (300 °F); and

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, 

continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln 

or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or 

dryer exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C 

(300 °F).

As stated in §63.8595, you must conduct each performance 

test in the following table that applies to you:

Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements...

1. Tunnel or 

roller kiln.

a. Select 

locations of 

sampling ports 

and the number of 

traverse points.

Method 1 or 1A 

of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

the APCD and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 410 of 444

b. Determine 

velocities and 

volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

You may use Method 2A, 

2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1, 

or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2, 

as appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1.

c. Conduct gas 

molecular weight 

analysis.

Method 3 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2.

You may use Method 3A or

3B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, as 

appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 

[Part 10] (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to the 

manual procedures (but

not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 

3A and 3B.

d. Measure 

moisture content 

of the stack gas.

Method 4 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.

e. Measure HF and 

HCl emissions.

i. Method 26A of 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or

You may use Method 26 of

40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, as an alternative 

to using Method 26A of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, when no acid PM 

(e.g., HF or HCl 

dissolved in water 

droplets emitted by 

sources controlled by a 

WS) is present. ASTM 

D6735-01 (Reapproved 

2009) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Methods 

26 and 26A.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 411 of 444

ii. Method 320 

of appendix A of 

this part.

When using Method 320 of 

appendix A of this part, 

you must follow the 

analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 

of Method 320 of

appendix A of this part, 

unless you can 

demonstrate that the 

complete spiking 

procedure has been 

conducted at a similar 

source. ASTM D6348-03 

(Reapproved 2010) 

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14) 

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 

320 if the test plan 

preparation and 

implementation in 

Annexes A1-A8 are 

mandatory and the %R in 

Annex A5 is determined 

for each target analyte.

f. Measure PM 

emissions.

i. Method 5 of 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; or

ii. Method 29 of 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8.

To determine PM, weigh 

the filter and report 

the results as PM 

filterable.

g. Measure Hg 

emissions.

Method 29 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8.

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 29 

(portion for Hg only).

h. Measure 

dioxin/furan 

emissions.

Method 23 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7.

2. Glaze 

spray 

operation

a. Select 

locations of 

sampling ports 

and the number of 

traverse points.

Method 1 or 1A 

of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

the APCD and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 412 of 444

b. Determine 

velocities and 

volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

You may use Method 2A, 

2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1, 

or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2, 

as appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1.

c. Conduct gas 

molecular weight 

analysis.

Method 3 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2.

You may use Method 3A or 

3B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, as 

appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 

[Part 10] (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to the 

manual procedures (but 

not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 

3A and 3B.

d. Measure 

moisture content 

of the stack gas.

Method 4 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.

e. Measure PM 

emissions.

Method 5 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.

f. Measure Hg 

emissions (tile 

glaze spray 

operations only).

Method 29 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8.

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)

(incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14)

may be used as an 

alternative to Method 29 

(portion for Hg only).

3. Spray 

dryer or 

floor tile 

press dryer

a. Select 

locations of 

sampling ports 

and the number of 

traverse points.

Method 1 or 1A 

of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

the APCD and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 413 of 444

b. Determine 

velocities and 

volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

You may use Method 2A, 

2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1, 

or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2, 

as appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1.

c. Conduct gas 

molecular weight 

analysis.

Method 3 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2.

You may use Method 3A or 

3B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, as 

appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 

[Part 10] (incorporated 

by reference, see 

§63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to the 

manual procedures (but 

not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 

3A and 3B.

d. Measure 

moisture content 

of the stack gas.

Method 4 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3.

e. Measure 

dioxin/furan 

emissions.

Method 23 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7.

4. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

with no addon control.

a. Establish the 

operating 

limit(s) for kiln 

process rate if 

the total 

facility maximum 

potential HClequivalent 

emissions are 

greater than the 

HCl-equivalent 

limit in Table 1 

to this subpart.

HCl-equivalent 

limit in Table 1 

to this subpart 

and emissions 

and production 

data from the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance 

test.

Using the procedures in 

§63.8595(g)(1), you must 

determine the maximum 

process rate(s) for your 

kiln(s) that would 

ensure total facility 

maximum potential HClequivalent emissions 

remain at or below the 

HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart. 

The maximum process 

rate(s) would become 

your site-specific 

process rate operating 

limit(s).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 414 of 444

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for kiln 

operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the kiln 

operating temperature, 

determine and record the 

block average 

temperature values for 

the three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific operating 

limit.

5. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

that is 

complying 

with PM 

and/or Hg 

productionbased 

emission 

limits.

Determine the 

production rate 

during each PM/Hg 

test run in order 

to determine 

compliance with 

PM and/or Hg 

production-based 

emission limits.

Production data 

collected during 

the PM/Hg 

performance 

tests (e.g., the 

number of 

ceramic pieces 

and weight per 

piece in the 

kiln during a 

test run divided 

by the amount of 

time to fire a 

piece).

You must measure and 

record the production 

rate, on a fired-product 

weight basis, of the 

affected kiln for each 

of the three test runs.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 415 of 444

6. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the lime 

feeder setting.

Data from the 

lime feeder 

during the 

HF/HCl 

performance 

test.

For continuous lime 

injection systems, you 

must ensure that lime in 

the feed hopper or silo 

and to the APCD is freeflowing at all times 

during the performance 

test and record the 

feeder setting, on a per 

ton of fired product 

basis, for the three 

test runs. If the feed 

rate setting varies 

during the three test 

runs, determine and 

record the average feed 

rate from the three test 

runs. The average of the 

three test runs 

establishes your minimum 

site-specific feed rate 

operating limit.

7. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber pressure 

drop.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during 

the PM 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

pressure drop, determine 

and record the block 

average pressure drop 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pressure drop 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 416 of 444

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

pH.

Data from the pH 

measurement 

device during 

the HF/HCl 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid pH, determine and 

record the block average 

pH values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pH measurements 

for the three test runs.

The average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid pH 

operating limit.

c. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

flow rate.

Data from the 

flow rate 

measurement 

device during 

the HF/HCl and 

PM performance 

tests.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid flow rate, 

determine and record the 

block average flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded flow rate 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid flow 

rate operating level. If 

different average wet 

scrubber liquid flow 

rate values are measured 

during the HF/HCl and PM

tests, the highest of 

the average values 

become your sitespecific operating 

limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 417 of 444

8. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

a WS that 

includes 

chemical 

addition to 

the water.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber chemical 

feed rate.

Data from the 

chemical feed 

rate measurement 

device during

the HF/HCl 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

chemical feed rate, 

determine and record the 

block average chemical 

feed rate values for the 

three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded chemical 

feed rate measurements 

for the three test runs. 

The average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific chemical 

addition rate operating 

limit.

9. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with 

an ACI system

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

carbon flow rate.

Data from the 

carbon flow rate 

measurement 

conducted during 

the Hg 

performance 

test.

You must measure the 

carbon flow rate during 

each test run, determine 

and record the block 

average carbon flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded carbon flow 

rate measurements for 

the three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific activated 

carbon flow rate 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 418 of 444

10. Tunnel or

roller kiln 

intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission 

limit without 

an ACI 

system.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for kiln 

operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the kiln 

operating temperature, 

determine and record the 

block average 

temperature values for 

the three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific operating 

limit.

11. Glaze 

spray 

operation 

equipped with 

a WS.

a. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber pressure 

drop.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during 

the PM 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

pressure drop, determine 

and record the block 

average pressure drop 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded pressure drop 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber liquid 

flow rate.

Data from the 

flow rate 

measurement 

device during 

the PM 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

liquid flow rate, 

determine and record the 

block average flow rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded flow rate 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific liquid flow 

rate operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 419 of 444

12. Spray 

dryer.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the operating 

temperature, determine 

and record the block 

average temperature 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific operating 

limit.

13. Floor 

tile press 

dryer.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the operating 

temperature, determine 

and record the block 

average temperature 

values for the three 

test runs, and determine 

and record the 3-hour 

block average of the 

recorded temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your maximum sitespecific operating 

limit.

As stated in §63.8595(f)(3), you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies to 

you by calculating the sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs using the 

TEFs in the following table:

Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63—Toxic Equivalency Factors

For each dioxin/furan congener...

You must calculate its 

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ using the 

following TEF...

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 420 of 444

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.01

Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.3

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.03

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.01

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.01

Octachlorodibenzofuran 0.0003

As stated in §63.8605, you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial compliance 

if...

1. Collection 

of all tunnel 

or roller kilns 

at the 

facility.

a. HF, HCl, and 

Cl2 emissions 

must not exceed 

62 kg/hr (140 

lb/hr) HCl 

equivalent.

i. You measure HF and HCl emissions for 

each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8 or its alternative, 

ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009) 

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14); 

or Method 320 of appendix A of this part 

or its alternative, ASTM D6348-03 

(Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14); and

ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF for each kiln using 

Equation 4 to this subpart; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 421 of 444

iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values for 

all kilns at the facility using Equation 5 

to this subpart; and

iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent does 

not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/hr).

2. Existing 

floor tile 

roller kiln.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.090 kg/Mg 

(0.18 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.090 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

applicable operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour 

performance test during which PM emissions 

did not exceed 0.090 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

6.3 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.3 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 4.6 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 422 of 444

3. Existing 

wall tile 

roller kiln 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg 

(0.20 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.17

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

4. Existing 

first-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.17 kg/Mg 

(0.33 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 lb/ton) of fired product.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 423 of 444

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.3 E-04 kg/Mg 

(2.6 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 1.5 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

5. Existing 

tile glaze line 

with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.93 kg/Mg 

(1.9 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg 

(1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.6 E-04 lb/ton) 

of glaze sprayed.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of glaze 

sprayed.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 424 of 444

6. Existing 

sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

16 kg/Mg 

(33 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 16 kg/Mg 

(33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

7. Existing 

sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

6.2 kg/Mg 

(12 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg 

(12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

8. Existing 

sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

4.4 kg/Mg 

(8.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg 

(8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

9. Existing 

floor tile 

spray dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 44 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 44 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

10. Existing 

wall tile spray 

dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.12 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 425 of 444

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

11. Existing 

floor tile 

press dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.19 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

12. New or 

reconstructed 

floor tile 

roller kiln.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.014 kg/Mg 

(0.027 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(3.9 E-05 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 1.9 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E-05 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

1.9 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E-05 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 1.5 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 426 of 444

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

13. New or 

reconstructed 

wall tile 

roller kiln. 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg 

(0.20 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.17

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

14. New or 

reconstructed 

first-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.047 kg/Mg 

(0.095 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 

or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, according to the 

calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not 

exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired 

product; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 427 of 444

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

6.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.2 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 6.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.2 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

6.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.2 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.37 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

15. New or 

reconstructed 

tile glaze line 

with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.30 kg/Mg 

(0.61 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg 

(0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.6 E-04 lb/ton) 

of glaze sprayed.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed; and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 428 of 444

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of glaze 

sprayed.

16. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

1.9 kg/Mg 

(3.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg 

(3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

17. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

1.6 kg/Mg 

(3.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg 

(3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

18. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

1.1 kg/Mg 

(2.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

i. The PM emissions measured using 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, 

over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg 

(2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

19. New or 

reconstructed 

floor tile 

spray dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.17

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 429 of 444

20. New or 

reconstructed

wall tile spray 

dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.12 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

21. New or 

reconstructed 

floor tile 

press dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.19

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured 

using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, over the period of the 

initial performance test, do not exceed 

0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which dioxin/furan emissions did 

not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

22. Existing, 

new, or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln.

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions.

i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the 

kiln fuel; and

ii. Develop a designed firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the sanitaryware shuttle kiln. 

You must either program the time and 

temperature cycle into your kiln or track 

each step on a log sheet; and

iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln 

with the maximum load (in tons) of product 

that can be fired in the kiln during a 

single firing cycle; and

iv. Develop maintenance procedures for 

each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the 

frequency of inspection and maintenance of 

temperature monitoring devices, controls 

that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and 

controls that regulate firing cycles.

As stated in §63.8620, you must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 430 of 444

Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

For each...

For the 

following...

You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance by...

1. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with a 

DIFF or DLS/FF.

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 1 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with DIFF 

or DLS/FF.

i. If you use a bag leak detection 

system, initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour of a bag leak detection 

system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with 

your OM&M plan; operating and 

maintaining the fabric filter such 

that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period; in calculating this 

operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that no corrective 

action is required, no alarm time is 

counted; if corrective action is 

required, each alarm is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer 

than 1 hour to initiate corrective 

action, the alarm time is counted as 

the actual amount of time taken by 

you to initiate corrective action; or 

performing VE observations of the 

DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency 

specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 

22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; 

and maintaining no VE from the DIFF 

or DLS/FF stack; and 

ii. Verifying that lime is freeflowing via a load cell, carrier 

gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas 

pressure drop measurement system, or 

other system; recording all monitor 

or sensor output, and if lime is 

found not to be free flowing, 

promptly initiating and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with 

your OM&M plan; recording the feeder 

setting once each shift of operation 

to verify that the feeder setting is 

being maintained at or above the 

level established during the HF/HCl 

performance test.

2. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with a 

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure 

drop data according to §63.8600(a); 

reducing the scrubber pressure drop 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 431 of 444

WS. each operating 

limit in Item 2 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with WS.

data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8600(a); maintaining 

the average scrubber pressure drop 

for each 3-hour block period at or 

above the average pressure drop 

established during the PM performance 

test; and

ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH 

data according to §63.8600(a); 

reducing the scrubber liquid pH data 

to 3-hour block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average 

scrubber liquid pH established during 

the HF/HCl performance test; and

iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid 

flow rate data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber 

liquid flow rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8600(a); 

maintaining the average scrubber 

liquid flow rate for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the highest 

average scrubber liquid flow rate 

established during the HF/HCl and PM 

performance tests; and

iv. If chemicals are added to the 

scrubber water, collecting the 

scrubber chemical feed rate data 

according to §63.8600(a); reducing 

the scrubber chemical feed rate data 

to 3-hour block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber chemical feed rate for each 

3-hour block period at or above the 

average scrubber chemical feed rate 

established during the HF/HCl 

performance test.

3. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with an 

ACI system.

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 3 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

kilns equipped with 

ACI system.

Collecting the carbon flow rate data 

according to §63.8600(a); reducing 

the carbon flow rate data to 3-hour 

block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

carbon flow rate for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the highest 

average carbon flow rate established 

during the Hg and dioxin/furan 

performance tests.

4. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

Collecting the kiln operating 

temperature data according to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 432 of 444

intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission limit 

without an ACI 

system.

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 4 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

kilns intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission limit 

without an ACI 

system.

§63.8600(a); reducing the kiln 

operating temperature data to 3-hour 

block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

kiln operating temperature for each 

3-hour block period at or below the 

average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

5. Tunnel or 

roller kiln with 

no add-on control

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 5 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for tunnel 

or roller kilns 

with no add-on 

control.

i. Performing VE observations of the 

stack at the frequency specified in 

§63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-7; and 

maintaining no VE from the stack.

ii. If your last calculated total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent was not at or below the 

health-based standard in Table 1 to 

this subpart, collecting the kiln 

process rate data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the kiln 

process rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8600(a); 

maintaining the average kiln process 

rate for each 3-hour block period at 

or below the kiln process rate

determined according to 

§63.8595(g)(1).

iii. Collecting the kiln operating 

temperature data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the kiln 

operating temperature data to 3-hour 

block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

kiln operating temperature for each 

3-hour block period at or above the 

average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

6. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with a 

FF.

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 6 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

glaze spray 

If you use a bag leak detection 

system, initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour of a bag leak detection 

system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with 

your OM&M plan; operating and 

maintaining the fabric filter such 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 433 of 444

operations equipped 

with a FF.

that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period; in calculating this 

operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that no corrective 

action is required, no alarm time is 

counted; if corrective action is 

required, each alarm is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer 

than 1 hour to initiate corrective 

action, the alarm time is counted as 

the actual amount of time taken by 

you to initiate corrective action; or 

performing VE observations of the FF 

stack at the frequency specified in 

§63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-7; and 

maintaining no VE from the FF stack.

7. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with a 

WS.

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 7 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure 

drop data according to §63.8600(a);

reducing the scrubber pressure drop 

data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8600(a); maintaining 

the average scrubber pressure drop 

for each 3-hour block period at or 

above the average pressure drop 

established during the PM performance 

test; and

ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid 

flow rate data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber 

liquid flow rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to §63.8600(a); 

maintaining the average scrubber 

liquid flow rate for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate established 

during the PM performance test.

8. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with a 

water curtain.

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 8 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with a 

water curtain.

Conducting daily inspections to 

verify the presence of water flow to 

the wet control system; and

Conducting weekly visual inspections 

of the system ductwork and control 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 434 of 444

equipment for leaks; and

Conducting annual inspections of the 

interior of the control equipment (if 

applicable) to determine the 

structural integrity and condition of 

the control equipment.

9. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with 

baffles.

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 9 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

kilns equipped with 

baffles.

Conducting an annual visual 

inspection of the baffles to confirm 

the baffles are in place.

10. Spray dryer Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 10 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

spray dryers.

Collecting the operating temperature

data according to §63.8600(a); 

reducing the operating temperature

data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8600(a); maintaining 

the average operating temperature for 

each 3-hour block period at or above

the average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

11. Floor tile 

press dryer

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 11 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

floor tile press 

dryers.

Collecting the operating temperature

data according to §63.8600(a); 

reducing the operating temperature

data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8600(a); maintaining 

the average operating temperature for 

each 3-hour block period at or below

the average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

12. Sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions.

i. Maintaining records documenting 

your use of natural gas, or an 

equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel at 

all times except during periods of 

natural gas curtailment or supply 

interruption; and

ii. If you intend to use an 

alternative fuel, submitting a 

notification of alternative fuel use 

within 48 hours of the declaration of 

a period of natural gas curtailment 

or supply interruption, as defined in 

§63.8665; and

iii. Submitting a report of 

alternative fuel use within 10 

working days after terminating the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 435 of 444

use of the alternative fuel, as 

specified in §63.8635(g); and

iv. Using a designed firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the shuttle kiln; and

v. For each firing load, documenting

the total tonnage of product placed 

in the kiln to ensure that it is not 

greater than the maximum load

identified in Item 1.a.iii of Table 3 

to this subpart; and

vi. Following maintenance procedures 

for each kiln that, at a minimum,

specify the frequency of inspection 

and maintenance of temperature 

monitoring devices, controls that 

regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and 

controls that regulate firing cycles; 

and

vii. Developing and maintaining 

records for each shuttle kiln, as 

specified in §63.8640.

As stated in §63.8635, you must submit each report that 

applies to you according to the following table:

Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

You must 

submit... The report must contain...

You must submit 

the report...

1. A compliance 

report.

a. If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitations or work practice 

standards that apply to you, a 

statement that there were no deviations 

from the emission limitations or work 

practice standards during the reporting 

period. If there were no periods during 

which the CMS was out-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, a 

statement that there were no periods 

during which the CMS was out-of-control 

during the reporting period.

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8635(b).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 436 of 444

b. If you have a deviation from any 

emission limitation (emission limit, 

operating limit) during the reporting 

period, the report must contain the 

information in §63.8635(d) or (e). If 

there were periods during which the CMS 

was out-of-control, as specified in 

your OM&M plan, the report must contain 

the information in §63.8635(e).

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8635(b).

2. A report of 

alternative fuel 

use.

The information in §63.8635(g). If you are subject 

to the work 

practice standards 

specified in Table 

3 to this subpart, 

and you use an 

alternative fuel 

to fire an 

affected kiln, by 

letter within 10 

working days after 

terminating the 

use of the 

alternative fuel.

As stated in §63.8655, you must comply with the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according 

to the following table:

Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart KKKKK

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart KKKKK?

§63.1 Applicability. Initial applicability 

determination; 

applicability after 

standard established; 

permit requirements; 

extensions, 

notifications.

Yes.

§63.2 Definitions. Definitions for part 63 

standards.

Yes.

§63.3 Units and 

Abbreviations.

Units and abbreviations 

for part 63 standards.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 437 of 444

§63.4 Prohibited 

Activities.

Compliance date; 

circumvention; 

severability.

Yes.

§63.5 Construction/

Reconstruction.

Applicability; 

applications; approvals.

Yes.

§63.6(a) Applicability. General Provisions (GP) 

apply unless compliance 

extension; GP apply to 

area sources that become 

major.

Yes.

§63.6(b)(1)-(4) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at 

effective date; 3 years 

after effective date; 

upon startup; 10 years 

after construction or 

reconstruction commences 

for section 112(f).

Yes.

§63.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if commenced 

construction or 

reconstruction after 

proposal.

Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved].

§63.6(b)(7) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

Area Sources 

That Become 

Major.

Area sources that become 

major must comply with 

major source standards 

immediately upon 

becoming major, 

regardless of whether 

required to comply when 

they were area sources.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(1)-(2) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing 

Sources.

Comply according to date 

in subpart, which must 

be no later than 3 years 

after effective date; 

for section 112(f) 

standards, comply within 

90 days of effective 

date unless compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)-(4) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(c)(5) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing Area 

Sources That 

Become Major.

Area sources that become 

major must comply with 

major source standards 

by date indicated in 

subpart or by equivalent 

time period (for 

example, 3 years).

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 438 of 444

§63.6(d) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(1)(i) Operation & 

Maintenance.

General Duty to minimize 

emissions.

No. See 

§63.8570(b) 

for general 

duty 

requirement.

§63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation & 

Maintenance.

Requirement to correct 

malfunctions ASAP.

No.

§63.6(e)(1)(iii) Operation &

Maintenance.

Operation and 

maintenance requirements 

enforceable independent 

of emissions 

limitations.

Yes.

§63.6(e)(2) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(3) Startup,

Shutdown, and

Malfunction

Plan (SSMP).

Requirement for startup, 

shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) and 

SSMP; content of SSMP. 

No.

§63.6(f)(1) Compliance 

Except During 

SSM.

You must comply with 

emission standards at 

all times except during 

SSM.

No.

§63.6(f)(2)-(3) Methods for 

Determining 

Compliance.

Compliance based on 

performance test, 

operation and 

maintenance plans, 

records, inspection.

Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative

Standard.

Procedures for getting 

an alternative standard.

Yes.

§63.6(h) Opacity/VE 

Standards.

Requirements for opacity 

and VE standards.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.6(i) Compliance 

Extension.

Procedures and criteria 

for Administrator to 

grant compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.6(j) Presidential 

Compliance 

Exemption.

President may exempt 

source category.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 439 of 444

§63.7(a)(1)-(2) Performance 

Test Dates.

Dates for conducting 

initial performance 

testing and other 

compliance 

demonstrations for 

emission limits and work 

practice standards; must 

conduct 180 days after 

first subject to rule.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(3) Section 114 

Authority.

Administrator may 

require a performance 

test under CAA section 

114 at any time.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(4) Notification of 

Delay in 

Performance 

Testing Due To 

Force Majeure.

Must notify 

Administrator of delay 

in performance testing 

due to force majeure.

Yes.

§63.7(b)(1) Notification of 

Performance 

Test.

Must notify 

Administrator 60 days 

before the test.

Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of 

Rescheduling.

Must notify 

Administrator 5 days 

before scheduled date of 

rescheduled date.

Yes.

§63.7(c) Quality 

Assurance (QA)/ 

Test Plan.

Requirements; test plan 

approval procedures; 

performance audit 

requirements; internal 

and external QA 

procedures for testing.

Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing 

Facilities.

Requirements for testing 

facilities.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Performance tests must 

be conducted under 

representative 

conditions.

No, §63.8595 

specifies 

requirements.

Cannot conduct 

performance tests during 

SSM; not a violation to 

exceed standard during 

SSM.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 440 of 444

§63.7(e)(2)-(3) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Must conduct according 

to subpart and EPA test 

methods unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative; must have 

at least three test runs 

of at least 1 hour each; 

compliance is based on 

arithmetic mean of three 

runs; conditions when 

data from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under 

Section 114

Administrator's 

authority to require 

testing under section 

114 of the Act.

Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative

Test Method.

Procedures by which 

Administrator can grant 

approval to use an 

alternative test method.

Yes.

§63.7(g) Performance 

Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data in 

performance test report; 

must submit performance 

test data 60 days after 

end of test with the 

notification of 

compliance status.

Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of 

Tests.

Procedures for 

Administrator to waive 

performance test.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability

of Monitoring

Requirements.

Subject to all 

monitoring requirements 

in subpart.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(2) Performance 

Specifications.

Performance 

Specifications in 

appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No.

§63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with 

Flares.

Requirements for flares 

in §63.11 apply.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct monitoring 

according to standard 

unless Administrator 

approves alternative.

Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)-(3) Multiple 

Effluents and 

Multiple 

Monitoring 

Systems.

Specific requirements 

for installing and 

reporting on monitoring 

systems.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 441 of 444

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring 

System 

Operation and 

Maintenance.

Maintenance consistent 

with good air pollution 

control practices.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and 

Predictable 

SSM.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

described in SSMP.

No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in 

SSMP.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

not described in SSMP.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Requirements.

How Administrator 

determines if source 

complying with operation 

and maintenance 

requirements.

No.

§63.8(c)(2)-(3) Monitoring 

System 

Installation.

Must install to get 

representative emission 

and parameter 

measurements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS 

Requirements.

Requirements for CMS. No, §63.8600 

specifies 

requirements.

§63.8(c)(5) Continuous 

Opacity 

Monitoring 

System (COMS) 

Minimum 

Procedures.

COMS minimum procedures. No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(c)(6) CMS 

Requirements.

Zero and high level 

calibration check 

requirements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(7)-(8) CMS 

Requirements.

Out-of-control periods. Yes.

§63.8(d) CMS Quality 

Control.

Requirements for CMS 

quality control.

Yes.

§63.8(e) CMS Performance

Evaluation.

Requirements for CMS 

performance evaluation.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(1)-(5) Alternative

Monitoring

Method.

Procedures for 

Administrator to approve 

alternative monitoring.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to

Relative 

Accuracy Test.

Procedures for 

Administrator to approve 

alternative relative 

accuracy test for 

continuous emission 

monitoring systems 

(CEMS).

No, not 

applicable.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 442 of 444

§63.8(g) Data Reduction. COMS and CEMS data 

reduction requirements.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(a) Notification

Requirements.

Applicability; State 

delegation.

Yes.

§63.9(b) Initial 

Notifications.

Requirements for initial 

notifications.

Yes.

§63.9(c) Request for

Compliance

Extension.

Can request if cannot 

comply by date or if 

installed BACT/LAER.

Yes.

§63.9(d) Notification of 

Special

Compliance

Requirements

for New Source.

For sources that 

commence construction 

between proposal and 

promulgation and want to 

comply 3 years after 

effective date.

Yes.

§63.9(e) Notification of 

Performance

Test.

Notify Administrator 60 

days prior.

Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of 

VE/Opacity

Test.

Notify Administrator 30 

days prior.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(g)(1) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of 

performance evaluation.

Yes.

§63.9(g)(2)-(3) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of COMS 

data use; notification 

that relative accuracy 

alternative criterion 

were exceeded.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(h) Notification of 

Compliance

Status.

Contents; submittal 

requirements.

Yes.

§63.9(i) Adjustment of

Submittal 

Deadlines.

Procedures for 

Administrator to approve 

change in when 

notifications must be 

submitted.

Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in 

Previous 

Information.

Must submit within 15 

days after the change.

Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Applicability; general 

information.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(1) General 

Recordkeeping 

Requirements.

General requirements. Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 443 of 444

§63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

occurrence and duration 

of startups and 

shutdowns.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

failures to meet a 

standard.

No. See 

§63.8640(c)(2) 

for 

recordkeeping 

of (1) date, 

time and 

duration; (2) 

listing of 

affected 

source or 

equipment, and 

an estimate of 

the volume of 

each regulated 

pollutant 

emitted over 

the standard; 

and (3) 

actions to 

minimize 

emissions and 

correct the 

failure.

§63.10(b)(2)(iii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Maintenance records. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(v)

Records Related 

to SSM.

Actions taken to 

minimize emissions 

during SSM.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(xii) and (xiv)

CMS Records. Records when CMS is 

malfunctioning, 

inoperative or out-ofcontrol.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records. Records when using 

alternative to relative 

accuracy test.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(b)(3) Records. Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes.

§63.10(c)(1)-(15) Records. Additional records for 

CMS.

No, §§63.8575 

and 63.8640 

specify 

requirements.

§63.10(d)(1) and 

(2)

General 

Reporting

Requirements.

Requirements for 

reporting; performance 

test results reporting.

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 444 of 444

§63.10(d)(3) Reporting 

Opacity or VE

Observations.

Requirements for 

reporting opacity and 

VE.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(d)(4) Progress 

Reports.

Must submit progress 

reports on schedule if 

under compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.10(d)(5) SSM Reports. Contents and submission. No. See 

§63.8635(f) 

for 

malfunction 

reporting 

requirements.

§63.10(e)(1)-(3) Additional CMS 

Reports.

Requirements for CMS 

reporting.

No, §§63.8575 

and 63.8635 

specify 

requirements.

§63.10(e)(4) Reporting COMS 

data.

Requirements for 

reporting COMS data with 

performance test data.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.10(f) Waiver for

Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Procedures for 

Administrator to waive.

Yes.

§63.11 Flares. Requirement for flares. No, not 

applicable.

§63.12 Delegation. State authority to 

enforce standards.

Yes.

§63.13 Addresses. Addresses for reports, 

notifications, requests.

Yes.

§63.14 Incorporation 

by Reference.

Materials incorporated 

by reference.

Yes.

§63.15 Availability of 

Information.

Information 

availability; 

confidential 

information.

Yes.

§63.16 Performance 

Track 

Provisions.

Requirements for

Performance Track member 

facilities.

Yes.
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick 

and Structural Clay Products

NESHAP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

Air Economics Group

(MD-C339-01)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

July 2014

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291
CONTACT INFORMATION

This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this document should be 

addressed to Tom Walton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

(email: walton.tom@epa.gov). 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Personnel from RTI International and Kapur Energy Environmental Economics, LLC

contributed significant data, analysis, and writing to this document under contract number EP-W11-029. 

Formatted: Body Text1,bt,body

tx,indent,flush,body text,memo body

text,body 4h,body 4equationh
iii

CONTENTS

Section Page

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................ES-1

Section 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background for the Proposed Rule...................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action................................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment.................................. 1-2

1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure................. 1-2

1.3 Organization of the Report................................................................................... 1-3

Section 2 Profile of the Affected Industry............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Overview of Current Conditions.......................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Supply .................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.1 What Types of Products Does the Industry Provide? .............................. 2-2

2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply? ................................................. 2-3

2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices 

and the Quantity Supplied?...................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Demand................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.1 Who Uses Brick? ..................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand? ......................................... 2-5

2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the 

Quantity Demanded? ............................................................................... 2-6

2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry....................................................... 2-6

2.4.1 Market Definition..................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior.............................................................................. 2-7

2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies................................ 2-8

2.5 Market Data and Trends..................................................................................... 2-11

2.5.1 Market Prices......................................................................................... 2-20
iv

2.6 References.......................................................................................................... 2-21

Section 3 Engineering Cost Analysis..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach ........................................ 3-1

3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device ................................................................. 3-4

3.3 Summary of Results............................................................................................. 3-6

Section 4 Human Health Benefits of Emissions Reductions................................................. 4-1

4.1 PM2.5-Related Human Health Co-Benefits.......................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment....................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Economic Valuation................................................................................. 4-5

4.1.3 Benefit-per-ton Estimates ........................................................................ 4-7

4.1.4 PM2.5 Co-Benefits Results....................................................................... 4-8

4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM2.5 CoBenefits.................................................................................................. 4-12

4.2 Unquantified Benefits........................................................................................ 4-16

4.2.1 HAP Benefits......................................................................................... 4-17

4.2.2 Additional SO2 Health Co-Benefits....................................................... 4-28

4.2.3 Visibility Impairment Co-Benefits ........................................................ 4-29

4.3 References.......................................................................................................... 4-29

Section 5 Economic Impact Analysis.................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Market Analysis................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Market-Level Results............................................................................... 5-2

5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates............................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Employment Impacts of the Proposed Rule......................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Theory...................................................................................................... 5-5

5.2.2 Current State of Knowledge Based on the Peer-Reviewed 

Literature................................................................................................ 5-10

5.2.3 Regulated Sector.................................................................................... 5-11

5.2.4 Environmental Protection Sector........................................................... 5-12

5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts............................................................................ 5-12

5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects............................................. 5-13

5.2.7 Information Specific to this Regulation................................................. 5-13
v

5.2.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 5-14

5.3 Impacts on Small Entities.................................................................................. 5-14

5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis........................................... 5-15

5.3.2 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis................................................... 5-17

5.4 References.......................................................................................................... 5-20

Section 6 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Synopsis............................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review............................. 6-1

6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act.................................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act ................................................................................... 6-3

6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ......................................................... 6-5

6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism .................................................................... 6-5

6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments........................................................................................................ 6-5

6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks............................................................................. 6-6

6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use.................................... 6-6

6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)....................... 6-6

6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations....................................... 6-7

Section 7 Comparison of Benefits and Costs......................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards............................................................... 7-1

7.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards............................................................... 7-1
vi

Appendixes

A Economic Model................................................................................................. A-1
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

2-1 Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327) ........................ 2-2

2-2 Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products......................................... 2-21

4-1 Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits of Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Rule 

in 2018 ........................................................................................................................ 4-10

4-2 Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline....................................................................................................................... 4-16

4-3 Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure 

in the Baseline............................................................................................................. 4-17

4-4 Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor 

sources (2005 NATA)................................................................................................. 4-19

4-5 Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP 

exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)........................................................... 4-20
viii

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

2-1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 (Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing) ............................................................................................................. 2-7

2-2. Market Share Statistics ................................................................................................. 2-8

2-3. Production Statistics by Census Region ....................................................................... 2-9

2-4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities.................................................... 2-10

2-5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa): 1993–

2010............................................................................................................................. 2-12

2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993–

2010............................................................................................................................. 2-14

2-7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993–2010.... 2-17

2-8. Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010......... 2-20

2-9. Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and 

Facing: 2010................................................................................................................ 2-20

3-1. APCD Implementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits............................................ 3-3

3-2. National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 million USD) ........................................ 3-4

3-3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD).............. 3-5

3-4. Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD) .................... 3-7

4-1. Human Health Effects of Ambient PM2.5.................................................................... 4-3

4-2. Summary of Monetized PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2- Related Health CoBenefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$)a.............. 4-9

4-3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 and its Precursor 

SO2- Related Co-Benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018a ..................... 4-9

4-4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at 

Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)a ...................................... 4-11

4-5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration 

Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studiesa ............................................. 4-15

5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP............................................. 5-3

5-2. Estimated Additional Labor Requirements................................................................. 5-14

5-3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates ......... 5-16

7-1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits (million 

2011$)........................................................................................................................... 7-2
ix
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 Background

The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing that all major sources in 

Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing category meet health-based standards for acid 

gas hazardous air pollutants; maximum achievable control technology standards for mercury, 

non-mercury metal hazardous air pollutants (or particulate matter surrogate), and dioxins/furans 

(Clay Ceramics only); and work practice standards, where applicable. The proposed rules would 

protect air quality and promote public health by reducing emissions of the hazardous air 

pollutants listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act. As part of the regulatory process, EPA is 

required to perform economic analysis and the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) discusses the

benefits and costs of the proposed rule.

ES.2 Results

For the proposed rule, the key results of the RIA follow:

■ Engineering Cost Analysis: EPA estimates the total annualized costs (2011$) for 

two compliance options:

– Proposed Standards: $21 Million

– Alternate Standards: $31 million

■ Benefits Analysis: The EPA monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of 

morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5.

– Proposed Standards: Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized 

benefits of the proposed standards to be $52 million to $120 million. Using a 7% 

discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $47 million to $110 

million.

– Alternate Standards: Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized 

benefits of the alternate standards to be $78 million to $180 million. Using a 7% 

discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $70 million to $160

million.

Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the 

benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing 

exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and 

exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAPs each year for the alternate standards, as well 

as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to 

reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, this rule would reduce several 

non-mercury HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year.
ES-2

■ Market Analysis and Closure Estimates: Market-level impacts include the price 

and production adjustments for bricks. The average national price under the proposed 

standards increases by 1.4%, or $3.29 per 1,000 SBE, while overall domestic 

production falls by 1.1%, or 38 million bricks per year. These values are lower than 

the alternate considered: the average national price increase for the alternate standards 

is 2.0% and brick U.S. brick production falls by about 55 million bricks. Under the 

proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are 

at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards EPA estimated that two to 

six brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

■ Social Cost Analysis: Under the proposed standards, the economic model suggests 

that industries are able to pass on $11.4 million (2011$) of the rule’s costs to U.S. 

households in the form of higher prices. Existing U.S. industries’ surplus falls by $9.1 

million, and the total U.S. economic surplus loss is $20.6 million. Under the alternate

standards, total U.S. economic surplus loss is about $10 million higher ($30.5 

million). 

■ Comparison of Benefits and Costs: The estimated monetized human health benefits 

outweigh the social costs.

– Proposed Standards: The net benefits are $31 million to $99 million at a 3% 

discount rate for the benefits and $26 million to $89 billion at a 7% discount rate.

– Alternate Standards: The net benefits are $47 million to $149 million at a 3% 

discount rate for the benefits and $39 million to $129 billion at a 7% discount 

rate.

■ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: EPA was particularly concerned about the 

proposed rule’s potential impacts to small entities, because 36 of 44 firms owning 

BSCP facilities have fewer than 750 employees and thus meet the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA’s) criterion for a small business in this industry. EPA thus 

conducted a screening analysis of the potential impacts by computing the ratio of 

control costs to firm sales revenues (i.e., a sales test). Based on the results of the 

screening analysis, EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the rule will not 

have a Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). As 

a result, EPA initiated a Small Business Advisory Review panel and undertook an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).

ES.3 Organization of this Report

The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the RIA. Section 1 

provides an introduction, Section 2 presents the industry profile, Section 3 describes engineering 

cost analysis, Section 4 presents the benefits analysis, Section 5 presents market, employment 

impact, social cost, and small business impact analyses, Section 6 address statutory and 

Executive Order requirements, and Section 7 provides a summary of benefits and costs.
1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background for the Proposed Rule

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing proposed National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Bricks and Structural Clay Products 

(BSCP) industry. This rulemaking will establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants (HF, 

HCl and metals) emitted from affected BSCP kilns.

The BSCP industry primarily includes facilities that manufacture brick, clay, pipe, roof 

tile, extruded floor and wall tile, and other extruded dimensional clay products from clay, shale, 

or a combination of the two. The manufacturing of brick and structural clay products involves 

mining, raw material processing (crushing, grinding, and screening), mixing, forming, cutting or 

shaping, drying, and firing. 

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to set emissions standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance 

of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) previously determined that the clay products manufacturing industry may 

reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed in Section 

112(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990. As a consequence, clay products 

manufacturing was included in the initial list of HAP-emitting categories published July 16, 

1992, in the Federal Register and included in the draft schedule for the promulgation of 

emissions standards published in the Federal Register on September 24, 1992. While conducting 

work on the clay products manufacturing source category under Task Order (TO) Nos. 10 and 30 

of EPA Contract No. 68-D6-0012, it was determined that separate national emissions standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) should be developed for brick and structural clay 

products (BSCP) manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing. The NESHAP for BSCP 

manufacturing was promulgated on February 28, 2003 and published in the Federal Register (See 

68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003)). As a result of judicial review, the standards were subsequently 

vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit due to issues 

associated with the methodology used to determine the minimum regulatory “floors” for new and 

existing units. (See Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). To address the 

vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, EPA is proposing new standards for BSCP 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing.. This Regulatory Impact Analysis examines 

the estimated costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed rule.
1-2

1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action

1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

EPA has concluded, after reviewing data on BSCP facilities and considering Sierra Club 

v EPA decision, that emissions standards are needed for several pollutants emitted by BSCP 

facilities. To ensure that public health, safety, and the environment are protected, EPA must 

ensure that emissions of HAP and other pollutants from BSCP are limited. EPA is proposing 

MACT technology-based standards for mercury and non-mercury metal HAP (or PM surrogate), 

and is proposing health-based standards for acid-gas HAP (HF, HCl, and Cl2). The proposed 

rule is expected to reduce direct emissions of PM and emissions of SO2, which is a precursor to 

formation of ambient PM2.5. Therefore, reducing these emissions would also reduce human 

exposure to ambient PM2.5 and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. Thus, the proposed 

rule is expected to reduce human morbidity and premature mortality due to exposure to PM2.5, in 

addition to providing human health and ecosystem benefits due to reduced emissions of HAP, 

and improved visibility due to reduced PM levels.

1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure

In general, regulatory intervention is required only when markets fail to allocate 

resources efficiently. For markets to allocate resources efficiently, both buyers and sellers must 

have access to full information about the transaction; there must be many buyers and sellers so 

that neither buyers nor sellers have power to control prices; and the market must impose all the 

social costs of the transaction on the buyers and sellers in the market. In some situations, 

however, these conditions do not occur, and markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. One 

such market failure occurs in cases where a production or consumption activity imposes an 

external cost on members of society who are neither buyers nor sellers in the market for the good 

or service produced. In cases of external costs, or “externalities,” some costs are imposed on 

members of society who are not part of the market. Because the market is not affected by these 

costs, it fails to account for these costs and thus does not allocate resources efficiently, and 

government must intervene to make the outcome more efficient. Environmental pollution that 

results from a production process is an example of an external cost borne by members of society 

who are neither producers nor consumers of the good whose production is generating the 

pollution.

In the case of bricks and structural clay products, manufacturing processes result in air 

emissions that impose external costs on individuals located near BSCP facilities who are exposed 

to the HAP emitted by the processes. Because these costs are borne by exposed individuals rather 

than by the BSCP manufacturers, they are not considered by manufacturers in their production 
1-3

decisions. As a result, BSCP manufacturers produce more, and emit more pollutants, than they 

would if they bore the costs of the air pollution they generate. Because the market does not 

provide a signal that properly limits the quantity of air pollutants emitted by BSCP 

manufacturers, a market failure exists that requires EPA to promulgate air pollution standards to 

limit their emissions.

1.3 Organization of the Report

The remainder of this economic analysis is organized as follows:

■ Section 2 presents a profile of the bricks and structural clay products industry.

■ Section 3 describes the proposed rule and the estimated costs of complying with it.

■ Section 4 presents a qualitative discussion of the benefits of the proposed rule.

■ Section 5 describes the estimated economic impacts of the proposed rule.

■ Section 6 describes analyses EPA conducted to assess requirements of statutes and 

Executive Orders.

■ Section 7 presents EPA’s provides a summary of benefits and costs.
2-1

SECTION 2

PROFILE OF THE AFFECTED INDUSTRY

Residential and commercial construction activities rely on bricks and structural clay 

materials. Most bricks are used as primary and secondary exterior wall materials, while other 

structural clay products are used in plumbing systems and roofing applications. Because over 

80% of brick sales are associated with residential construction (Brick Industry Association, 

2013a), trends in the industry are influenced by trends in residential construction markets.

2.1 Overview of Current Conditions

To provide a general overview of current conditions in the affected industry, we used the 

U.S. government’s official measures reported in the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), 

County Business Patterns, and Current Industrial Reports. Because the latest year of data (2011) 

differs from historical industry trends, it is unclear whether the industry without the proposed 

rule would be similar to the industry today. As a result, the profile provides information on a 

range of factors that may influence how the brick-related markets may evolve.

Federal statistical agencies classify business establishments in this industry using two 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes:1

■ 327121 Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing

■ 327123 Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing

In 2011, the value of products shipped in the two industries was approximately $1.1 

billion. Nearly all of the value was centered in NAICS 327121. The ASM reported that 218 

establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a 

total annual payroll of about $300 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a,b).

During 2011, approximately 3 to 4 billion Standard Brick Equivalents (S.B.E.)2 were 

produced by the industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Federal Reserve data and industry surveys 

suggest the capacity utilization rate for the brick industry is below 50% (Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System, 2013; Brick Industry Association, 2013b) (see Figure 2-1). The 

current observed conditions are influenced by the recent steep declines in the residential 

 1

In 2012, these industries were classified under NAICS 32710 Clay Building Material and Refractories 

Manufacturing. See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=327120&search=2012. 2

This is a common unit that accounts for various sizes of brick products. It measures 3-5/8′′ x 2-1/4′′” x 7-5/8′′.
2-2

Figure 2-1. Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327)

Source: Federal Reserve Board, 2013

construction market. For example, 2011 new privately owned housing starts (608,800) units are 

well below levels observed in 2000 (1.6 million) and 1990 (1.2 million) (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2013c). Since 2010, new residential housing starts have begun to grow again, but levels are still 

much lower than the previous two decades. New privately owned housing starts in July 2013 

were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 852,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013d).

2.2 Supply

To better understand the markets for affected products, we considered the group of sellers 

that provide goods to the market and common factors that influence supply (e.g., input prices) 

and quantity of goods supplied (e.g., output prices).

2.2.1 What Types of Products Does the Industry Provide?

The U.S. Current Industrial Report provides descriptions of the types of clay construction 

goods supplied to U.S. and international markets. They include

■ brick (building or common and face);

■ structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed;

■ vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings; and
2-3

■ structural clay tile (except facing).

Bricks are the primary good produced in terms of value and physical quantities and 

include face brick, paving brick, building brick, and thin brick. Face brick accounts for over 90% 

of brick shipments.

2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply?

The manufacturing process for brick and structural clay goods includes raw material 

processing (mining, grinding, screening, and blending) followed by forming, cutting, or shaping; 

drying; firing; cooling; and storage (U.S. EPA, 1997). Census data for NAICS 327121 Brick and 

Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing suggest that 70% of the product’s value is associated with 

value-added activities (i.e., labor and capital earnings). During the last 5 years, labor costs have 

remained flat in the nonmetallic mineral products sector. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

reports that average annual hourly earnings (adjusted for inflation) of all employees was about 

$20 per hour (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013a,b).

The value of intermediate goods used in these processes (i.e., raw materials like clay and 

shale) make up the remaining 30% of the industry’s total product value (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2013a). Intermediate production costs can be influenced by changes in raw clay material prices, 

but the prices of these materials have not fluctuated recently. Since 2008, common clay prices 

(primarily used in brick) have remained steady at $12 per ton. The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) notes that brick companies often consider sources of raw materials when considering 

purchasing other companies. For example, the Belden Brick Co. purchase of Lawrenceville 

Brick Inc. included Lawrenceville Brick’s clay reserves (USGS, 2011).

2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices and the Quantity 

Supplied?

All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the 

price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply measures how much the quantity of bricks 

supplied responds to changes in the brick price.3 If manufacturers have a significant amount of 

flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks 

is elastic. In contrast, if the quantity of brick produced and supplied only changes by small 

amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.

 3

The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price.
2-4

A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over 

which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, it is more difficult for the firm to 

adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors 

of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford (2002) developed an 

equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed 

factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two 

production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period4 and the other input that 

varies with production. 

Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × fixed factor value share

1− fixed factor value share .

To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 50% to

approximately match the non-labor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases 

where we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity 

is 1 (a Cobb-Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor 

prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shares. If we assume the elasticity of 

substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is

Supply Elasticity = 1 × 0.5

1 − 0.5 = 1.

Using these values for the fixed factor’s value share and elasticity of substitution, the 

supply elasticity is approximately one. This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick 

manufacturers would plan to sell 1% more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity 

utilization rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value may underestimate how 

responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual 

supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. 

2.3 Demand

Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) are primarily used in residential and 

commercial construction applications and are influenced by overall macroeconomic trends and 

conditions in the residential housing industry. Facing bricks are used in overall building 

structures (e.g., exterior walls), while clay pipe; structural clay tile; and drain, sewer, and roof 

tiles are used in elements of the building structure such as plumbing systems, fireplaces, and 

 4

The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include 

materials or labor.
2-5

roofs. Because the vast majority of affected products are brick products and available data for

other structural clay products are more limited, we focus on brick demand characteristics.

2.3.1 Who Uses Brick?

According to the Brick Industry Association, the vast majority of affected brick products 

are sold for residential end uses and nonresidential building uses (Brick Industry Association, 

2013b). The pattern of shipments varies by brick type: approximately half of the industry 

shipments go to dealers or distributors who sell the products to final consumers and the other half 

is sold directly to end users like construction companies (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). 

Over half of the shipments flow to two census regions (South Atlantic and West South Central), 

and Texas is the largest consumer of face brick and paver shipments (Brick Industry Association, 

2013b).

2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand?

BSCP have a variety of characteristics desirable in building materials. According to the 

Brick Industry Association, brick’s desirable attributes include its durability, flexibility, 

resistance to fire, weather, and pests; and little required maintenance. (Brick Industry 

Association, 2013a) A recent National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) survey of buyers 

of new homes found that “To get brick, respondents reported they would add $7,500 in 

additional costs” (NAHB, 2013).

2.3.2.1 Price of Related Goods

In exterior wall applications, vinyl siding, stone, stucco, wood, and fiber cement are 

substitute building materials. Historically, brick has maintained a 25% market share in the 

exterior wall application market (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). A recent NAHB survey 

found that “On a national level, respondents ranked brick highest at 34 percent, vinyl siding at 21 

percent, stone at 16 percent, stucco at 12 percent, wood at 7 percent and fiber cement at 5 

percent” (NAHB, 2013).

2.3.2.2 Income

Homeowners purchasing more expensive homes are more likely to choose brick 

exteriors. A recent NAHB survey found that “Ranked by price point [sale price of the home], 

brick topped other home exteriors in the $150,000–$499,000 range, while vinyl was preferred in 

the $150,000 or less range; brick ranked second to stone in the $500,000+ range with stucco 

following in third place” (NAHB, 2013). This suggests demand for brick exterior is likely 

influenced by income levels.
2-6

2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the Quantity Demanded?

All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer BSCP when the price of the 

product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price response.5 Several 

factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If consumers can easily switch 

from one product to another because there are many close substitutes, demand tends to be more 

elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market definitions (king versus modular brick) 

and over longer time horizons for the consumption decision (months versus years).

Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities of demand for 

BSCP. However, economy-wide simulation models have suggested the nonmetallic mineral 

industry demand elasticity is approximately −0.8, a 1% change in price results in a 0.8% decline 

in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008). Because the market definition for 

the product is broad, the price response for BSCP is likely more elastic than this value.

2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry

2.4.1 Market Definition

Market definition boundaries are commonly defined in two dimensions: product 

substitution and geography. Based on product substitution characteristics and available data, we 

rely on the Census definitions to define three groups of markets in which buyers are more likely 

to view products as substitutes:

■ Brick

– Brick (building or common and face)

■ Other Structural Clay Products

– Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed

– Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings

■ Other Clay Structural, Floor, and Wall Tile

– Structural clay tile (except facing)

Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high, relative to value. For this 

reason, bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of 

transportation across long distances. We found that international trade represented only a small 

fraction of economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of 

 5

The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in 

price.
2-7

nonmetallic mineral products were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 2010).6 As shown in Table 2-1, approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are 

shipped in NAICS 327 is less than 50 miles. A comparison of Census region average prices for 

bricks shows substantial differences between regions in the average price of brick products 

shipped. To the extent these price differences persist over time, these differences may be 

consistent with regional markets for brick.

Table 2-1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 (Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing)

Distance Shipped

2007 Value 

(million $) 

2007 Tons 

(thousands) Share of Total Tons

Total 124,713 1,060,926 ----

Less than 50 miles 53,721 796,412 75.1%

50–99 miles 12,351 82,342 7.8%

100–249 miles 21,760 113,384 10.7%

250–499 miles 15,117 39,645 3.7%

500–749 miles 8,495 16,040 1.5%

750–999 miles 4,872 6,039 0.6%

1,000–1,499 miles 3,790 4,722 0.4%

1,500–2,000 miles 2,364 1,344 0.1%

More than 2,000 miles 2,246 998 0.1%

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Table 15.

2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior

Economists have developed a system for grouping markets that helps describe the pricing 

behavior of firms. At one end of the spectrum, firms have little control over pricing for their 

products. Put another way, firms are price takers, and price is determined by supply and demand 

conditions. This basic model is more likely to hold when the industry has a large number of 

sellers, goods are identical, and barriers for entry and exit (laws, high capital requirements, or 

patents) are low. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a single firm that searches for the 

price-output combination that maximizes its profit. This basic model is more likely to hold when 

there are significant barriers to entry (industries with economies of scale or ownership of a 

patent).

 6

The data include other products such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay 

products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.

Formatted Table
2-8

When markets have a small number of firms selling identical products, firms may not 

necessarily be price takers; instead, they may be able to determine their price while considering 

how competitors may respond to their own decisions. To assess the extent to which affected 

markets may be concentrated among a small number of sellers, we compiled and estimated 

national and regional market share statistics using historical kiln survey data. Across the United 

States, a large number of companies (50 companies) own and operate over 200 kilns. The largest 

U.S. market share for a U.S. company is low (about 16%). This is consistent with the latest 5-

year Census statistics describing U.S. concentration at the 6-digit NAICS code level, which 

found that both affected industries are well below levels that government agencies consider 

moderately concentrated (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013e).

As Table 2-2 indicates, looking within regions, the New England region has only two 

operating companies, while the South Atlantic region has 17. In several Census regions, a single 

parent company accounts for a majority of estimated regional production. To the extent that 

brick product markets are defined at the regional level versus national level, the price-taking 

model of firm decisions may not describe business decisions as well as other economic models 

of pricing behavior.

Table 2-2. Market Share Statistics

Census Region Number of Companies

Maximum Company 

Share of Region 

Production

East North Central 12 38%

East South Central 9 49%

Mid-Atlantic 5 66%

Mountain 6 48%

New England 2 NA

Pacific 4 40%

South Atlantic 17 26%

West North Central 9 31%

West South Central 5 52%

Source: U.S. EPA calculations.

2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies

Based on historical kiln inventory survey data, over 13 million tons of BSCP are 

produced by the industry, which includes over 200 major and area source kilns. EPA has 

Formatted Table
2-9

identified 44 ultimate parent companies with facilities that will need new or modified control 

devices to meet new emission standards. The companies own 86 facilities and operate 172 kilns

(see Table 2-3). The South Atlantic region accounts for a significant share of existing production 

capacity; 25 facilities and 57 kilns are operated in this region.

Table 2-3. Production Statistics by Census Region 

Census Region

Total S.B.E 

Shipped in 2010

(1000s)

Number of 

Affected Kilns

Number of 

Affected 

Facilities

Estimated Affected 

Production Share 

within Region

East North Central 285,508 29 10 81%

East South Central 388,685 28 14 100%

Mid-Atlantic 213,583 8 5 69%

Mountain 114,154 4 3 50%

New England 37,034 0 0 0%

Pacific 74,563 6 4 85%

South Atlantic 1,307,601 57 25 92%

West North Central 183,247 15 11 100%

West South Central 891,232 25 14 100%

United States 3,495,607 172 86 90%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations.

2.4.3.1 Small Businesses

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) requires federal departments and agencies to evaluate if 

and/or how their regulations affect small business entities. Specifically, the Agency must 

determine if a regulation is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. The business is defined as the owner company, rather than the 

facility; the size of the owner company determines the resources it has available to comply with 

the rule.

Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories 

Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) (2013)

defines a small business as having fewer than 750 employees. There are 36 parent companies 

that are small businesses (see Table 2-4).

Formatted Table
2-10

Table 2-4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities

Company ICR NAICS

Affected 

Facilities

Affected 

Kilns

Sales 

(million $) Employment Small

Acme Brick Company 327121 11 19 260.1 2,602 No

American Eagle Brick Co. 327121 1 1 NA NA Yes

Belden Brick Company 327121 2 11 87.5 751 No

Boral Bricks Inc. 327121 11 20 3,922.0 14,740 No

Certainteed Corporation 327123 1 1 1,330.8 Over 10,000 No

Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. 327121 1 4 43.5 175 Yes

Columbus Brick Co. 327121 1 3 4.9 50 Yes

Commercial Brick Corp. 327121 1 3 17.5 175 Yes

Continental Brick Co. 327121 1 2 15.0 75 Yes

Cunningham Brick Company, Inc. 327121 2 2 18.5 134 Yes

Elgin-Butler Brick Co. 327122 1 2 2.7 30 Yes

Endicott Clay Products Co. 327122 1 3 23.4 180 Yes

General Finance, Inc. 327121 1 1 212.2 229 Yes

General Shale Brick, Inc. 327121 6 16 285.4 1,900 No

Glen Gery 327121 6 10 83.3 N/A No

Hanson Brick East, LLC 327121 9 15 51.2 1,021 No

Hebron Brick Company 327121 1 1 NA 55 Yes

Henry Brick Company, Inc. 327121 1 2 5.3 60 Yes

International Chimney Corp. 327121 1 1 27.9 250 Yes

Ironrock Capital (formerly 

Metropolitan Ceramics, Inc.) 327122 1 4 NA 175 Yes

Kansas Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 1 3.5 35 Yes

Kasten Clay Products Co. 327121 1 1 3.8 42 Yes

L.P. McNear Brick Co, Inc. 327121 1 1 11.0 75 Yes

Lee Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 4 35.0 175 Yes

Logan Clay Products 327123 0 0 13.5 175 Yes

Marion Ceramics, Inc. 327123 1 1 5.3 75 Yes

McAvoy Brick Co. 327121 1 1 1.8 7 Yes

Mohawk Industries 327122 2 5 5,788.0 NA No

Mutual Materials Co. 327121 & 327123 2 2 7.5 35 Yes

Old Virginia Brick Co. 327121 2 3 22.1 175 Yes

(continued)

Formatted Table
2-11

Table 2-4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities (continued)

Company ICR NAICS

Affected 

Facilities

Affected 

Kilns

Sales 

(Million $) Employment Small

Pacific Clay Products 327121 1 3 27.2 175 Yes

Pine Hall Brick Co., Inc. 327121 1 6 30.2 35 Yes

Ragland Clay Products, LLC 327121 1 1 1.9 35 Yes

Richards Brick Co. 327121 1 2 18.1 75 Yes

Sioux City Brick and Tile Co. 327121 2 3 7.5 35 Yes

Statesville Brick Co. 327121 1 2 35.0 175 Yes

Summit Pressed Brick and Tile 

Co. 327121 1 1 8.5 75 Yes

Summitville Tiles, Inc. 327122 1 4 300.0 175 Yes

Superior Clay Corp. 327121 0 0 7.4 75 Yes

The Stiles & Hart Brick Company 327121 0 0 4.8 44 Yes

Triangle Brick 327121 2 5 29.8 203 Yes

Watsontown Brick Co. 327121 1 2 4.1 35 Yes

Whitacre Greer 327121 1 2 8.7 75 Yes

Yankee Hill Brick and Tile 327121 1 1 NA 75 Yes

NA = No annual sales data

Sources: Data on total number of ultimate parent company employees and annual sales were gathered from 

Hoover’s, Manta, and company Web sites.

2.5 Market Data and Trends

This section presents historical market data for select bricks and structural clay products.

Historical market data include U.S. volumes for manufacturers’ shipments,7 foreign trade, and 

apparent consumption. Data were obtained from various years of Current Industrial Reports 

published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 2-5 provides data for common, building, and 

face bricks, while Table 2-6 presents data for structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, 

including unglazed and glazed, and vitrified clay and sewer pipe. Table 2-7 focuses on structural 

clay tile (except facing), and Table 2-8 is for clay floor and wall tile.

 7

The source reports list both shipment and production quantities. Here we have chosen shipment quantities over 

production quantities, even though these do not differ by much in each year or show different trends over time. 

The reason to choose shipment numbers over production numbers is that shipment quantity is the number that is 

relevant for final consumption. In fact, when the data source reports calculate “apparent consumption,” they use 

shipment numbers, not production numbers.

Formatted Table
2-12

Table 2-5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa

): 1993–

2010

Year

Shipment of 

Bricksb Exports Imports

Apparent 

Consumptionb

1993 6,655,400 42,643 10,170 6,622,927

1994 7,237,982 43,733 8,967 7,203,216

1995 6,890,321 43,627 16,867 6,863,561

1996 7,619,279 42,759 20,629 7,597,149

1997 7,732,971 46,518 20,267 7,706,720

1998 8,241,086 40,631 18,243 8,218,698

1999 8,931,700 34,171 24,920 8,922,449

2000 8,616,784 30,712 47,472 8,633,544

2001 7,941,432 30,547 27,579 7,938,464

2002 7,986,393 37,135 25,164 7,974,422

2003 8,519,678 46,286 20,807 8,494,199

2004 9,388,648 75,297 33,436 9,346,787

2005 9,418,759 52,008 49,432 9,416,183

2006 8,899,594 36,421 75,717 8,938,890

2007 7,237,176 40,613 70,914 7,267,477

2008 5,053,935 47,898 97,739 5,103,776

2009 3,585,481 37,640d,f 74,479e,f 3,622,320

2010 3,495,657 37,532d,f 79,054e,f 3,537,179

Note: This table presents data for brick (building or common and face), which, by the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with 

NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing.

a Bricks are 2 1/4′′ by 3 5/8′′ by 7 5/8′′ brick equivalent.

b This represents shipment quantity of bricks. The definition of value of shipments can be found on the “definitions” Web page 

for Current Industrial Reports at Census Bureau’s Web site (http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html). 

The relevant item is “quantity and value of shipments.” The figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical 

shipments of all products sold, transferred to other establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether 

for domestic or export sale. The value represents the net sales price, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the 

products are shipped, net of discounts, allowances, freight charges, and returns. Shipments to a company’s own branches are 

assigned the same value as comparable appropriate allocation of company overhead and profit. Products bought and resold 

without further manufacture are excluded.

c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Bricks − Exports + Imports

d The export data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The export 

numbers seem to have the same pattern as shipment numbers. In particular, during 2001–2002 and 2007–2008 when brick 

shipment numbers were low, brick export numbers were also low. So we have estimated the numbers for 2009 and 2010 based 

on the regression exports = a + b*shipments, using 1993 to 2008 data. Another source of information for estimating export 

quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. 

However, because we lack reliable data on export prices for those years, we do not estimate the quantities of exports for 2009 

and 2010 from the values data.

(continued)

Formatted Table
2-13

Table 2-5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa

): 1993–

2010 (continued)

e The import data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The import 

numbers do not seem to be correlated with shipment numbers. For example, during 2001–2002 and 2007–2008 when brick 

shipment numbers were low, brick import numbers were not that low. In fact, plotting the numbers suggests that imports show 

an increasing trend since 1993. So we have extrapolated to estimate the numbers for 2009 and 2010 assuming a linear trend 

beginning in the year 1993. We fond imports to be lower in 2009 and 2010 compared with 2008, because the linear trend starts 

in 1993, and the unusually high 2008 number is only an outlier outside this trend. Another source of information for estimating 

import quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are 

available. The value of imports drops approximately 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack data on import prices 

for those years, we did not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values.

f Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and 

2010 the industrial reports only list export and import values and not quantities, they do report both quantities and values for 

shipment. So with the latter information, we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the 

export and import quantities. We explored any systematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, 

and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systematically 

different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and 

import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (47,775 for 2009 and 65,099 for

2010) and import quantities (26,069 for 2009 and 23,956 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed to be quite 

different from past-year trends. So we decided to opt for the regression method of estimation.

g As previous notes indicate, export and import numbers for 2009 and 2010 are estimates. So the annual growth rates are 

computed for both 1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2008.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2002.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1997.

As shown in Table 2-5, the brick market shows declines in the quantity of shipments and 

apparent consumption between 1993 and 2010 with a marked decreases during the recessions 

beginning in 2007. An examination of the data during the time period 1993 to 2010 shows that 

brick shipment and apparent consumption increased during some years and decreased during 

other years. However, because of the steep declines beginning in 2007, 2010 values are only 

about 53% of 1993 values. Brick shipments steadily increased from about 6.6 billion bricks in 

1993 to 8.6 billion bricks in 2000, dropped somewhat in 2001 and remained below the 2000 level 

until 2003, and rose again in 2004 and 2005 before beginning a steady decline starting in 2006.
2-14

Table 2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010

Year

Shipments of Select 

Structural Clay 

Products

a Exportsb Importsb

Apparent 

Consumptionc

1993 193,500 287 648 193,861

1994 188,039 3,187 915 185,767

1995 183,967 1,543 388 182,812

1996 204,908 1,610 345 203,643

1997 218,013 1,334 888 217,568

1998 207,815 2,291 291 205,815

1999 231,876 1,176 389 231,089

2000 217,448 2,092 346 215,702

2001 216,685 1,219 220 215,686

2002 177,558 1,583 607 176,582

2003 177,620 1,258 374 176,736

2004 210,981 1,473 915 210,423

2005 258,393 1,218 526 257,701

2006 219,911 1,041 341 219,211

2007 195,064 1,102 536 194,497

2008 132,181 1,164 463 131,480

2009 98,439d 1,138e,g 512f,g 97,813h

2010 73,183d 1,098e,g 512f,g 72,597h

Note: This table presents data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed, which, according to 

the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing, and 

vitrified clay and sewer pipe, which, according to the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327123, Other 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing. According to our communication with Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau, in all 

the Table 1s in the Current Industrial Reports, the category listed as “Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick”

should in fact be “Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed.” The Current 

Industrial Reports since 1998 omitted the phrase “including unglazed and salt glazed” and only mentioned structural 

facing tile and ceramic glazed brick. 

Calculation rules used when computing numbers from the Industrial reports for this table are 1 million brick equivalent = 

2,000 short tons and 1 metric ton = 1.10231131 short ton. The source for the first formula is 

http://midlandbrick.wikidot.com/standard-brick-equivalent, which says that 1 standard brick equivalent is equal to a 4 

pound brick. Because 1 short ton is equal to 2,000 pounds, this implies the conversion ratio used here.

(continued)

Formatted Table
2-15

Table 2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010 (continued)

a This represents shipment quantity of select structural clay products. The definition of value of shipments can be found on the 

“definitions” Web page for Current Industrial Reports at the Census Bureau’s Web site 

(http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html). The relevant item is quantity and value of shipments. The 

figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical shipments of all products sold, transferred to other 

establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether for domestic or export sale. The value represents the 

net sales price, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the products are shipped, net of discounts, allowances, freight 

charges, and returns. Shipments to a company’s own branches are assigned the same value as comparable appropriate 

allocation of company overhead and profit. Products bought and resold without further manufacture are excluded.

b For export and import numbers between 1998 and 2008, the export and import data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick 

including unglazed and salt glazed are not available in the source reports (marked as (X) in the source reports), so the export 

and import numbers are computed with vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings data only.

c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Select SCP − Exports + Imports

d Readers should interpret these numbers carefully. For the 2009 and 2010 shipment numbers, the shipment data for facing tile 

and ceramic glazed brick are not available in the source report and are marked as “(S).” “(S)” means that the numbers did not 

meet publication standards. We talked to Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau and learned that these numbers involved over 50% 

of imputation, which is the reason they were not published. However, these imputed numbers were available upon our request, 

and the 2009–2010 shipment numbers in this table were calculated using these numbers for facing tile and ceramic glazed 

brick including unglazed and salt glazed. Numbers for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are available in the source reports.

e Because the export quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers for 

2009 and 2010 are estimates for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings exports. The export numbers for vitrified clays do not 

seem to be correlated to shipment numbers. In particular, during the 2002–2003 and 2007–2008 recessions when shipment 

numbers are low, the vitrified clay export numbers are not low. Further, plotting the numbers suggests that the exports have 

decreased over time and exhibit smaller fluctuations over time since 1993. So we have extrapolated the numbers for 2009 and 

2010 assuming a linear trend beginning in the year 1993. Another source of information for estimating export quantities is that, 

in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. However, because 

we lack reliable data on export prices, we do not estimate quantities of exports for 2009 and 2010 from these values.

f Because import quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers here

are based on estimates. The import numbers do not seem to have the same pattern as the shipment numbers. In particular, 

during 2002–2003 and 2007–2008 when shipment numbers were obviously low, the import numbers were not. Plotting the 

numbers suggests that imports of structural clay products have fluctuated widely. So we simply set these numbers at their 

historical average. Another source of information for estimating import quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the 

values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. Similar to bricks, the value of imports for vitrified clay 

sewer pipe and fittings dropped by about 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack reliable data on import prices, we 

did not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values.

g Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and 

2010 the industrial reports only list export and import values and not quantities, they do report both quantities and values for 

shipment. So with the latter information we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the 

export and import quantities. We explored any systematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, 

and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systematically 

different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and 

import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (725 for 2009 and 1,346 for 2010) 

and import quantities (206 for 2009 and 206 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed to be quite different from 

past-year trends. So we used the regression method of estimation for exports and historical average method for imports.

h These are based on estimates. Please see notes e, f, and g.

i As previous notes suggest, data for 2009 and 2010 are based on estimates. So the annual growth rates were computed for both 

1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2008.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2006.

(continued)
2-16

Table 2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010 (continued)

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2004.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2002.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2001.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1994.

Both exports and imports of bricks increased between 1993 and 2008. The largest quantity 

of brick exports are to Canada (approximately 78% in 2010) (U.S. International Trade Commission 

[USITC], 2013). The largest quantities of brick and structural clay imports are from Germany 

(40% in 2010) and Mexico (37% in 2010)8 (USITC, 2013). The average annual growth rate for 

exports was 3.16% during this time period. The growth rate for imports was much larger at 

22.61%. In 1993, imports were about 10 million and jumped to 98 million by 2010, with 

significant increases happening in 1995, 2000, 2006, and 2008. This difference between brick 

export and import growth rates is also evident if we examine exports and imports as proportions of 

shipments instead of their levels. Exports started at 0.64% of shipments in the year 1993 but had 

dropped to 0.41% by 2006. Imports started at 0.15% of shipments in 1993 but rose to 0.85% of 

shipments in 2006. After 2006, both these ratios rose. By 2010, exports and imports as a 

percentage of shipments rose to 1.07% and 2.26%, respectively. But the rises since 2006 were 

driven more by decreases in shipments, rather than by changes in the levels of exports and imports.

 8

Although these two countries typically are the largest source of imports, the country shares vary from year to year. 

For example, in 2012, Germany and Mexico again accounted for more than 65% of imports, but Mexico 

represented 40% and Germany accounted for 24%.
2-17

Table 2-7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993–

2010

Year Shipments of Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing)

1993 (D)

1994 (D)

1995 53,727

1996 50,990

1997 49,729

1998 49,098

1999 47,156

2000 47,009

2001 49,453

2002 49,563

2003 40,330

2004 40,050

2005 47,704

2006 37,491

2007 35,477

2008 23,410

2009 16,749

2010 12,140

Average Annual Growth Rates

1995–2010 −8.31%

Note: This table presents data for structural clay tile (except facing), which, by 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with 

NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing. Unlike Table 2-7 and Table 2-8, this table does not 

show exports, imports, or apparent consumption, because the export and import data for structural clay tile (except 

facing) are not available (marked as (X) in the source reports). “(D)” means that the number is “withheld to avoid 

disclosing data of individual companies” in the source report.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2010

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2008

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2006

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2004

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2003

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2002

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2001

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1999

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1998

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1994.

Formatted Table
2-18

The market for other structural clay products is much smaller than the brick market, but it 

still represents an important sector of the BSCP industry. As Table 2-6 shows, both shipments 

and apparent consumption of structural clay products in 2010 were less than 38% of 1993 values. 

Similar to the trend in the brick market, structural clay product shipments exhibited a steady 

increase from 194 thousand short tons in 1993 to 232 thousand short tons in 1999, dropped 

somewhat during the recession in 2002 and 2003, rose between 2003 and 2006, and began a 

steady decline starting in 2007.

Although structural clay product shipments and consumption declined over the time 

period 1993 to 2008, the average annual growth rate of exports was high at 67.42%. Although 

this growth rate looks large, it is relatively small in absolute terms. This high average growth rate 

is largely due to a substantial increase in exports of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings from 1993 to 

1994. In 1993, 287 short tons of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings were exported from the United 

States, and in 1994, this number rose dramatically to 3,187 short tons. Since 1995, exports have 

mostly stayed between 1,000 and 2,000 short tons. Imports of structural clay products are small, 

never exceeding a thousand short tons in any year between 1993 and 2008.

The shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) are even smaller than other structural 

clay products (which are presented in Table 2-6). As Table 2-7 shows, the average annual growth 

rate of shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) is approximately −8.3% for the years 

1995 to 2010. More specifically, the shipments exhibit a steady decrease from 54 thousand short 

tons in 1995 to 35 thousand short tons in 2007, during which period the average annual growth 

rate is only −2.9%. Then in the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, the shipment levels dropped sharply 

by 34.0%, 28.5%, and 27.5%, respectively.

As the data in Tables 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 show, the quantities of all BSCP experienced 

declines starting in 2007, the year the recent economic crisis set in, and continued to decline 

post-crisis. The data show that shipment levels had recovered after the 2002–2003 recession and 

held steady for the years prior to 2007. The decline since 2007 also appears to be due to the 

2007–2008 recession rather than to structural changes within the industry. We expect the 

industry to come back to its prerecession levels in the future. This is supported by the fact that 

shipment levels for all BSCP were low during 2001–2003, when the early 2000s recession 

happened in the United States and the European Union. However, these shipment levels bounced 

back after the recession. This prediction is also supported by the recent annual reports of large 

companies producing these products. For example, the annual reports of large companies such as 

Boral Limited and Saint-Gobain show them recovering after exhibiting declines during the 

recession.
2-19

Boral Limited is an international building and construction materials group headquartered 

in Australia, and its U.S. operations manufacture clay bricks, concrete, and clay roof tiles and 

manufactured stone veneer for residential and mid-rise commercial buildings.9 The 2012 annual 

report of Boral Limited compares U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A.’s earnings before interest 

and taxes (EBIT) during the years 2006–2012 and finds them to be highly correlated (Boral 

Limited, 2012). Both the numbers for U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A.’s EBIT in the United 

States declined simultaneously between 2006 and 2011 but rose in 2012. U.S. housing starts 

went from 2,030 thousand in fiscal year 2006 to 570 thousand in fiscal year 2011, and Boral 

U.S.A.’s EBIT declined to −$99 million in 2011 from $139 million in 2006. Boral U.S.A.’s 

EBIT rose to −$87 million in fiscal year 2012 when U.S. housing starts increased to 685 

thousand.

Saint-Gobain S.A, which produces construction products marketed in the United States 

under the CertainTeed brand, is a Europe-based multinational company and does not provide its 

U.S. operations data separately. However, its overall data exhibit synchronization with the 

economic cycles. Its net sales declined from 30,274 million euros in 2002 (Saint-Gobain, 2003; 

2013) to 29,590 million euros in 2003, showed a steady recovery after that to 43,800 million 

euros in 2008, declined in 2009 to 37,786 million euros, and then recovered in 2011 and 2012 to 

42,116 million euros and 43,198 million euros, respectively (Saint-Gobain, 2013).

Although their annual reports do not provide data on quantities in shipment, production,

or exports as the Current Industrial Reports do, the recent trends in the financial performance of 

these large companies, in particular the profit and sales data, support that this industry will 

improve as the effects of the recession recede and the building and construction industry revives.

In addition, our prediction that the BSCP industry is only experiencing a temporary 

setback and will come back to prerecession levels is supported by existing reports for the clay 

and shale industry, which is upstream of the BSCP industry. Put another way, raw materials 

typically used in manufacturing BSCP include common clay and shale (Midwest Research 

Institute, 2001). A recent advance report published in 2013 by the U.S. Department of the 

Interior and USGS suggests that once statistical data become available, the country may see a 

moderate growth in common clay sales in 2012 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2013). In their 

 9

This information is from the company’s Web site, http://www.boral.com. According to the Web site, Boral’s 

operations include the largest brick manufacturer and the largest clay tile manufacturer in the United States; 

through the 50% owned MonierLifetile, it is also the largest concrete roof tile manufacturer in the United States.
2-20

analysis, the factors supporting the growth are the increases in housing starts and construction 

spending for commercial buildings similar to what is evident from the Boral USA example.

2.5.1 Market Prices

Average prices for brick and structural products vary by product type and over time. In 

2010, the average price of brick was approximately $248 per 1,000 S.B.E., clay floor and wall 

tile was approximately $1.30 per square foot, and vitrified clay sewer pipe and fitting were $496 

per short ton (Table 2-8). There is substantial variation in average brick prices across Census 

regions ($183 to $541), as shown in Table 2-9. Since 2005, average nominal prices for bricks 

and clay floor and wall tile have remained flat or fallen (Figure 2-2), while average nominal 

prices for other structural clay products have risen to higher levels.

Table 2-8. Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010

Product Average Price Units

Brick, building or common and facing $248 $ per 1,000 S.B.E.

Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings $496 $ per short ton

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

Table 2-9. Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and 

Facing: 2010

Census Region $ per 1,000 S.B.E.

New England $379

Middle Atlantic $324

East North Central $297

West North Central $272

South Atlantic $227

East South Central $183

West South Central $225

Mountain $355

Pacific $541

United States $248

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

Formatted Table

Formatted Table
2-21

Figure 2-2. Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Labor Statistics, 2013a,b

2.6 References

Boral Limited. 2012. Annual Report 2012. 

http://www.boral.com.au/Images/common/pdfs/annual-reports/Boral-Annual-Report2012.pdf.

Brick Industry Association. 2013a. An Overview of the American Brick 

Industry. http://www.gobrick.com/resources/americanbrickindustry/tabid/7644/default.as

px (accessed on August 16, 2013).

Brick Industry Association. 2013b. 2012 Brick Industry Annual Report. Version 4.0.

Federal Reserve Board. 2013. Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization—

G.17. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ (August 16, 2013).

Ho, M., R. Morgenstern, J. Shih. 2008. Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry. 

Resources for the Future Discussion Paper DP 08-37. 

http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-08-37.pdf.

Midwest Research Institute. 2001. Industry Characterization for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing. 
2-22

Mohawk Industries, Inc. 2012. 2011 Annual Report. http://phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTMzMjE1fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZ

T0z&t=1.

National Association of Homebuilders. 2013. NAHB Study Reveals What Home Buyers Really 

Want. February 19, 2013.

Rutherford, T.F. 2002. Lecture Notes on Constant Elasticity Functions. 

http://www.gamsworld.eu/mpsge/debreu/ces.pdf.

Saint-Gobain. 2003 Annual Report 2002. http://www.saintgobain.com/files/Rapport_annuel_2002_EN.pdf.

Saint-Gobain. 2013. Registration Document 2012. http://www.saintgobain.com/files/Rapport_annuel_2012_EN.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013a. Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current 

Employment Statistics survey (National) Series ID: CEU3132700003.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013b. Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers Series ID: 

CUUR0000SA0.

U.S. Census Bureau 2013a. Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Statistics for 

Industry Groups and Industries: 2011 and 2010; generated by RTI International; using 

American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov. (August 16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. Geography Area Series: County Business Patterns: 2011; generated 

by RTI International; using American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov. (August 

16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013c. Historical New Residential Construction Started. 

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/historical_data/. (August 16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013d. New Residential Construction Press Release. August 16, 2013. 

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/. (August 16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013e. Manufacturing: Subject Series: Concentration Ratios: Share of 

Value of Shipments Accounted for by the 4, 8, 20, and 50 Largest Companies for 

Industries: 2007; generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder. 

http://factfinder2.census.gov. (September 12, 2013).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2008.
2-23

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2006.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2004.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2002.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2001.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products; Summary, 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1994.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. May 2013. 2011 Minerals Yearbook, 

Clay and Shale [Advance Release].

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1-2011-clays.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. 2007 Commodity 

Flow Survey United States. Table 15. 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/commodity_flow_surv

ey/final_tables_december_2009/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, 

Section 11.3, “Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Final Report.”

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s03.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Minerals Yearbook: Clay and Shale. Written by R. L. Virta.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1-2011-clays.pdf.
2-24

U.S. International Trade Commission. Interactive Trade and DataWeb. U.S. Imports for 

Consumption and U.S. Domestic Exports, NAICS 327121. (December 31, 

2013). http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, then search for NAICS 327121.

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2013. Table of Small Business Size Standards.

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/size_table_07222013.pdf.
3-1

SECTION 3

ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS

Production of BSCP results in emissions of pollutants such as hydrogen fluoride (HF), 

hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine (Cl2), mercury (Hg), and non-Hg hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) metals from the kilns used in the production process. To control these emissions, EPA has 

developed emission standards for these HAPs under the authority of Section 112 of the CAA.

This section explains how the estimates of compliance costs associated with this regulation were

developed, and it is organized as follows:

■ Section 3.1, Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach: This section 

describes the regulatory approaches considered in this analysis and presents the 

annual cost for each of the compliance options and the various regions of the country.

It also describes the air pollution control devices (APCDs) and the pollutants targeted 

because they are key to understanding how the annual costs were obtained.

■ Section 3.2, Summary of Costs by Control Device: There are various APCD 

implementation options to meet the compliance requirements. This section presents 

the overall capital and annual costs for those implementation options. It also provides 

key considerations for how the costs were derived. 

3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach

EPA evaluated costs for affected BSCP facilities under two regulatory approaches:

■ Proposed Standards: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton 

or concentration, and a choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf or non-Hg 

HAP metals in lb/hr for all kilns with no emissions averaging.

■ Alternate Standards: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton 

or concentration, and a choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf or non-Hg 

HAP metals lb/hr for small and large kilns (emissions averaging is allowed to meet 

the PM and non-Hg HAP metals limits).

Both approaches assume the facility would choose to become a Synthetic Area (SA) by 

installing dry limestone adsorbers (DLAs) on uncontrolled kilns if that is less expensive than 

installing the control needed to comply with the compliance option. Both approaches have 

separate Hg numeric limits for large and small kilns, and the HBS applies to all kilns at the 

facility for all compliance options.

These costs include the implementation of various APCDs. The following are the APCDs 

considered:
3-2

■ Dry injection fabric filter (DIFF). DIFFs are used to remove HF, HCl, Cl2, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and PM. They work by injecting hydrated lime (a dry lime powder) 

into the kiln exhaust. The lime and kiln exhaust mix in a reaction chamber or an 

exhaust duct and are ducted to a fabric filter. The lime reacts with and removes HF, 

HCl, Cl2, and SO2 from the exhaust stream.

■ Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF). DLS/FFs are used to control HF, HCl, Cl2, 

SO2, and PM emissions. These systems mix hydrated lime and water in a 

conditioning drum and then inject the lime/water slurry into a reaction chamber, 

where the slurry mixes with the kiln exhaust. Acid gas removal takes place in the 

reaction chamber, subsequent ductwork, and across the lime-caked fabric filter bags. 

From the reaction chamber, the exhaust stream is ducted to a fabric filter for PM 

removal.

■ Dry limestone adsorber (DLA). DLAs are used to control HF, HCl, Cl2, and SO2

emissions. Limestone is fed into the top of a reaction chamber countercurrent to the 

kiln exhaust gases. The limestone cascades through multiple baffles within the 

chamber and reacts with and removes HF and, to a lesser degree, HCl, Cl2 and SO2

from the kiln exhaust. The system does not provide a mechanism for controlling PM.

■ Fabric filter (FF). FFs are used to control PM emissions. Most FFs use long, 

cylindrical bags made of a woven material that acts as a filter medium. Gas enters the 

FF and is drawn through the bags, and PM accumulates in layers on the surface of the 

filter media until gas can no longer move through the bag. When the system reaches a 

sufficient pressure drop due to PM build-up, the bag will be cleaned. The system does 

not provide a mechanism for controlling Hg, HCl, Cl2, or SO2.

■ Activated carbon injection (ACI). An ACI system would pneumatically inject 

activated carbon into the flue gas ductwork of a kiln. The activated carbon adsorbs 

the vaporized mercury from the flue gas and is then collected with the fly ash in a 

particulate collection device. This device is assumed to work with a fabric filter for 

particulates collection.

Cost estimates were developed for each BSCP facility assuming the APCDs are 

implemented according to various scenarios. In general, an FF and ACI were assumed to be the 

APCD needed to meet the MACT limits for an uncontrolled kiln. Table 3-1 presents the general 

implementation scenarios for tunnel kilns required to meet MACT for all pollutants. 
3-3

Table 3-1. APCD Implementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits

APCD

Meets Non-Hg 

HAP Metals or PM 

Limit

Meets Mercury

Limit APCD Implementation Scenario

None Yes No Install new FF with ACI

None No Yes Install new FF

None No No Install new FF with ACI

Existing DIFF Yes Yes No action

Existing DIFF Yes No Add ACI

Existing DIFF No Yes Retrofit DIFF for PM control

Existing DIFF No No Retrofit DIFF for PM control; add ACI

Existing DLS/FF Yes Yes No action

Existing DLA Yes No Add FF with ACI

Existing DLA No Yes Add FF

Existing DLA No No Add FF with ACI

The option to “Install new DLA” was evaluated for facilities to become an SA. All 

scenarios in Table 3-1 assume meeting the HBS for acid gases.

The following are the scenarios considered to meet the HBSs:

■ If a kiln can meet the non-Hg HAP metals or PM and Hg MACT limits and is located 

at a facility that can meet the health-based limits, no additional costs would be 

incurred.

■ If an uncontrolled kiln or a kiln with a DLA is located at a facility that can meet the 

health-based limits, then only an FF would be needed to meet the non-Hg HAP 

metals or PM MACT limit, and activated carbon injection would be needed to meet 

the Hg MACT limit.

■ Because the health-based limits are on a facility-wide basis, the owner or operator of 

a facility not meeting the health-based limits with current controls may not have to 

add an APCD to every uncontrolled kiln and enhance every existing APCD.

Engineering judgment was used to assign minimum control “actions needed” based 

on a review of the contribution of each emission point’s to the allowable HClequivalent emissions. Additional information about this assessment is presented in the 

memorandum “Details on the Estimation of Engineering Costs Associated with the 

Implementation of the Compliance Options for the BSCP Sector” included in the 

docket.

Table 3-2 presents the annual cost for each of the regulatory approaches.

Formatted Table
3-4

Table 3-2. National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 million USD)

Regions Proposed 

Standards

Alternate 

Standards

NEG New England $0 $0

MID Middle Atlantic $1 $1

ENC East North Central $4 $6

WNC West North Central $1 $2

SAC South Atlantic $7 $11

ESC East South Central $2 $4

WSC West South Central $5 $7

MTN Mountain <$1 <$1

PAC Pacific <$1 $1

USA United States $21 $31

3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device

A key component of the total annual costs presented in Table 3-1 is the implementation 

cost of the APCDs required to (1) meet the MACT limits for Hg and for non-Hg HAP metals or 

PM, (2) become an SA source, and/or (3) meet an HBS for acid gases, according to the 

compliance options. This section provides an overview of how the capital and annual costs of 

implementation were estimated. Additional information about those estimates is provided in the 

memorandum “Details on the Estimation of Engineering Costs Associated with the 

Implementation of the Compliance Options for the BSCP Sector” included in the docket.

Consistent with the information presented in Section 3.1, the following are the APCD 

implementation scenarios considered in this analysis:

■ Install new DLA

■ Install new ACI

■ Install new FF

■ Install new FF and ACI

■ Retrofit with DIFF

■ Retrofit with DIFF and ACI

■ No action

Formatted Table
3-5

Table 3-3 presents the capital and annual costs of each implementation option.

Table 3-3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD)

Control options

Capital Costs Annual Costs

Small APCD Large APCD Small APCD Large APCD

Install new FF $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $437,845 $526,006

Install new DLA $1,096,473 $1,489,548 $310,036 $409,718

Install new ACI $102,224 $146,697 $70,589 $96,842

Install new DIFF and ACI $2,102,224 $2,876,697 $683,886 $893,938

Install new FF and ACI $1,302,224 $1,646,697 $508,434 $622,848

Retrofit with DIFF $2,800,000 $3,820,000 $720,811 $943,585

Retrofit with DIFF and ACI $2,902,224 $3,966,697 $791,400 $1,040,427

Costs are presented for small and large APCDs. A small control device would be used if 

the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to that device is less than 10 tons of bricks per 

hour. A large control device would be used if the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to 

that device is 10 tons of bricks or more per hour. Capital cost data were generally obtained from 

the Information Collection Request (ICR) and supplemented with information from literature 

sources.

The estimates of annual cost include

■ operation and maintenance (O&M) labor;

■ materials;

■ electricity;

■ waste disposal;

■ overhead; and

■ property taxes, insurance, and administration.

Information pertaining to cost data sources and how they were used to develop unit costs 

for each APCD is provided in the memorandum “Methodology and Assumptions Used to 

Estimate the Model Costs and Impacts of BSCP Air Pollution Control Devices.”

Formatted Table
3-6

Annualization of the capital costs involves establishing an annual “payment” sufficient to 

finance the investment over the expected lifetime of the equipment or loan period. This payment 

is typically referred to as the “capital recovery cost.” The three key inputs into the capital 

recovery costs are the capital costs, the interest rate, and the equipment life. This analysis 

assumed a 20-year equipment life and a 7% interest rate, which corresponds to the interest rate 

used in OAQPS’s analyses. 

3.3 Summary of Results

This section presents total annualized costs for each regulatory approach. Total 

annualized cost is the sum of the annualized capital cost and the annual costs. The following is a 

summary of those results:

■ Proposed Standards: approximately $21 million

■ Alternate Standards: approximately $31 million

Annual costs listed above for each compliance option also include costs for testing and 

monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs incurred by facilities that have testing 

and monitoring costs.

When looking at annual costs per region of the country, the South Atlantic region (SAC)

consistently exhibits the highest cost and the Pacific region (PAC) the lowest nonzero cost.

The APCD requirements vary by approach, and the following is a summary of the annual 

costs for each of the APCD implementation scenarios, presented as ranges for small and large 

APCDs:

■ Install new DIFF: $613,297–$797,096

■ Install new FF: $437,845–$526,006

■ Install new DLA: $310,036–$409,718

■ Install new ACI: $70,589–$96,842

■ Install new DIFF and ACI: $683,886–$893,938

■ Install new FF and ACI: $508,434–$622,848

■ Retrofit with DIFF: $720,811–$943,585

■ Retrofit with DIFF and ACI: $791,400–$1,040,427
3-7

Retrofitting with DIFF and ACI is the option that exhibits the highest cost and installing a 

new ACI system the lowest, which is consistent with the capital cost results.

We provide additional details on the number of stacks required to take action to achieve 

compliance (Table 3-4). Additional details on existing baseline control devices is presented in 

the memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP 

NESHAP” included in the docket.

Table 3-4. Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD)

Action to Achieve Compliance

Standards Parameter

Install DLA 

(become 

SA)

Install 

FF

Install FF 

+ ACI

Add ACI 

to Existing 

APCD

Retrofit 

with 

DIFF Totals

Proposed Number of 

Stacks

14 4 16 3 1 38

Capital Cost $18.9 $5.40 $26.3 $0.440 $3.82 $54.9

Annual Cost $5.24 $1.93 $10.0 $0.289 $0.944 $18.4

Alternate Number of 

Stacks

31 16 15 3 1 66

Capital Cost $38.3 $21.6 $24.7 $0.440 $3.82 $88.9

Annual Cost $10.7 $7.71 $9.34 $0.289 $0.944 $29.0

Formatted Table
4-1

SECTION 4

HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

Synopsis

Implementation of emissions controls required by the proposed Brick and Structural Clay 

NESHAP is expected to reduce direct emissions of particulate matter in particular PM2.5 and 

sulfur dioxide SO2 that are the result of emissions limits that are being tightened for a number of 

categories, and imposed for the first time for other categories. In this section, we quantify the 

monetized co-benefits for this rule associated with reducing exposure to ambient fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) by reducing emissions of precursors. The total PM2.5 and SO2 reductions are the 

consequence of the expected design changes to the affected manufacturing plants needed in order 

to meet the multiple limits. We estimate the total monetized co-benefits to be $52 million to 

$120 million at a 3% discount rate and $47 million to $110 million at a 7% discount rate on a 

yearly average in 2018 for the proposed standards. All estimates are in 2011$. These estimates 

reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature 

mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource, and 

methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important 

benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each 

year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAPs each year through 

one of the regulatory approaches, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to 

PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, this rule would 

reduce several non-mercury HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year.

4.1 PM2.5-Related Human Health Co-Benefits

This rule is expected to reduce direct emissions of PM and emissions of SO2, which is a 

precursor to formation of ambient PM2.5. Therefore, reducing these emissions would also reduce 

human exposure to ambient PM2.5 and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. In this 

section, we provide an overview of the PM2.5-related benefits. A full description of the 

underlying data, studies, and assumptions is provided in the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 

2012a).

In implementing this rule, emission controls may lead to reductions in ambient PM2.5 

concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM in some 

areas and assist other areas with attaining the PM NAAQS. Because the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. 

EPA, 2012a) also calculated PM benefits, there are important differences worth noting in the 
4-2

design and analytical objectives of each RIA. The NAAQS RIAs illustrate the potential costs and 

benefits of attaining a revised air quality standard nationwide based on an array of emission 

reduction strategies for different sources including known and unknown controls, incremental to 

implementation of existing regulations and controls need to attain the current standards. In short, 

NAAQS RIAs hypothesize, but do not predict, the reduction strategies that States may choose to 

enact when implementing a revised NAAQS. The setting of a NAAQS does not directly result in 

costs or benefits, and as such, the NAAQS RIAs are merely illustrative and the estimated costs 

and benefits are not intended to be added to the costs and benefits of other regulations that result 

in specific costs of control and emission reductions. However, it is possible that some costs and 

benefits associated with the required emission controls estimated in this RIA may account for the 

same air quality improvements as estimated in the illustrative PM NAAQS RIA. 

By contrast, the emission reductions for implementation rules such as this rulemaking are 

generally for specific, well-characterized sources. In general, EPA is more confident in the 

magnitude and location of the emission reductions for implementation rules. As such, emission 

reductions achieved under these and other promulgated implementation rules will ultimately be 

reflected in the baseline of future NAAQS analyses, which would reduce the incremental costs 

and benefits associated with attaining revised future NAAQS. EPA remains forward looking 

towards the next iteration of the 5-year review cycle for the NAAQS. As a result, EPA does not 

re-issue NAAQS RIAs that retroactively update the baseline to account for implementation rules 

promulgated after a NAAQS RIA outside of the NAAQS review process. For more information 

on the relationship between the NAAQS and implementation rules such as analyzed here, please 

see Section 1.3 of the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a).

4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment

The Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA) (U.S. EPA, 2009) 

identified the human health effects associated with ambient PM2.5, which include premature 

morality and a variety of morbidity effects associated with acute and chronic exposures. Table 

4-1 provides the quantified and unquantified benefits captured in EPA’s benefits estimates for 

reduced exposure to ambient PM2.5. Although the table below does not include entries for the 

unquantified health effects such as exposure to ozone and NO2 nor welfare effects such as 

ecosystem effects and visibility impairment, these effects are itemized in Chapters 5 and 6 of the 

PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). It is important to emphasize that the list of unquantified 

benefit categories is not exhaustive, nor is quantification of each effect complete.
4-3

Table 4-1. Human Health Effects of Ambient PM2.5

Category Specific Effect

Effect Has 

Been 

Quantified

Effect Has 

Been 

Monetized

More 

Information 

in PM 

NAAQS RIA

Improved Human Health

Reduced incidence 

of premature 

mortality from 

exposure to PM2.5

Adult premature mortality based on cohort 

study estimates and expert elicitation 

estimates (age >25 or age >30)

  Section 5.6

Infant mortality (age <1)   Section 5.6

Reduced incidence 

of morbidity from 

exposure to PM2.5

Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18)   Section 5.6

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages)   Section 5.6

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age 

>20)

  Section 5.6

Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages)   Section 5.6

Acute bronchitis (age 8–12)   Section 5.6

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14)   Section 5.6

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 

9–11)

  Section 5.6

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6–18)   Section 5.6

Lost work days (age 18–65)   Section 5.6

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65)   Section 5.6

Chronic Bronchitis (age >26) --a --a Section 5.6

Emergency room visits for cardiovascular 

effects (all ages)

--a --a Section 5.6

Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 50–

79)

--a --a Section 5.6

Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages) -- -- PM ISAb

Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary 

function, non-asthma ER visits, nonbronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and 

populations)

-- -- PM ISAb

Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., 

low birth weight, pre-term births, etc.)

-- -- PM ISAb,c

Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects -- -- PM ISAb,c

a We assess these benefits qualitatively due to time and resource limitations for this analysis. In the PM NAAQS 

RIA, these benefits were quantified in a sensitivity analysis, but not in the core analysis.

b We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods.

c We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other 

significant concerns over the strength of the association.

Formatted Table
4-4

We follow a “damage-function” approach in calculating benefits, which estimates 

changes in individual health endpoints (specific effects that can be associated with changes in air 

quality) and assigns values to those changes assuming independence of the values for those 

individual endpoints. Because EPA rarely has the time or resources to perform new research to 

measure directly either the health outcomes or their values for regulatory analyses, our estimates 

are based on the best available methods of benefits transfer, which is the science and art of 

adapting primary research from similar contexts to estimate benefits for the environmental 

quality change under analysis. 

The health impact assessment (HIA) quantifies the changes in the incidence of adverse 

health impacts resulting from changes in human exposure to PM2.5 or other air pollutants. We 

use the environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) to systematize health 

impact analyses by applying a database of key input parameters, including population 

projections, health impact functions, valuation functions (Abt Associates, 2012). For this 

assessment, the HIA is limited to those health effects that are directly linked to ambient PM2.5

concentrations. There may be other indirect health impacts associated with implementing 

emissions controls, such as occupational health exposures. Epidemiological studies generally 

provide estimates of the relative risks of a particular health effect for a given increment of air 

pollution (often per 10 μg/m3 for PM2.5). These relative risks can be used to develop risk 

coefficients that relate a unit reduction in PM2.5 to changes in the incidence of a health effect. We 

refer the reader to section 5.6 of the PM NAAQS RIA for more information regarding the 

epidemiology studies and risk coefficients applied in this analysis (U.S. EPA, 2012a), and we 

briefly elaborate on adult premature mortality below. The size of the mortality effect estimates 

from epidemiological studies, the serious nature of the effect itself, and the high monetary value 

ascribed to prolonging life make mortality risk reduction the most significant health endpoint 

quantified in this analysis.

Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of 

epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical studies, the PM ISA documents the association between 

elevated PM2.5 concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased premature 

mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009). The PM ISA, which was twice reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB-CASAC) (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2009b, 

2009c), concluded that there is a causal relationship between mortality and both long-term and 

short-term exposure to PM2.5 based on the entire body of scientific evidence. The PM ISA also 

concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-threshold log-linear model 
4-5

most adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship while 

recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration-response function. 

For mortality, we use the effect coefficients from the most recent epidemiology studies 

examining two large population cohorts: the American Cancer Society cohort (Krewski et al., 

2009) and the Harvard Six Cities cohort (Lepeule et al., 2012). The PM ISA (U.S. EPA, 2009) 

concluded that the ACS and Six Cities cohorts provide the strongest evidence of the association 

between long-term PM2.5 exposure and premature mortality with support from a number of 

additional cohort studies. The SAB’s Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB-HES) also supported 

using these two cohorts for analyses of the benefits of PM reductions (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2010a). 

As both the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies have inherent strengths and weaknesses, we 

present benefits estimates using relative risk estimates from both these cohorts (Krewski et al., 

2009; Lepeule et al., 2012).

As a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5 -mortality relationship, EPA 

graphically presents benefits derived from EPA’s expert elicitation study (Roman et al., 2008; 

IEc, 2006). The primary goal of the 2006 study was to elicit from a sample of health experts 

probabilistic distributions describing uncertainty in estimates of the reduction in mortality among 

the adult U.S. population resulting from reductions in ambient annual average PM2.5 levels. In 

that study, twelve experts provided independent opinions of the PM2.5 -mortality concentrationresponse function. Because the experts relied upon the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies to 

inform their concentration-response functions, the benefits estimates derived from the expert 

responses generally fall between results derived from the these studies (see Figure 7-1). We do 

not combine the expert results in order to preserve the breadth and diversity of opinion on the 

expert panel. This presentation of the expert-derived results is generally consistent with SAB 

advice (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2008), which recommended that the EPA emphasize that “scientific 

differences existed only with respect to the magnitude of the effect of PM2.5 on mortality, not 

whether such an effect existed” and that the expert elicitation “supports the conclusion that the 

benefits of PM2.5 control are very likely to be substantial.” Although it is possible that newer 

scientific literature could revise the experts’ quantitative responses if elicited again, we believe 

that these general conclusions are unlikely to change.

4.1.2 Economic Valuation

After quantifying the change in adverse health impacts, we estimate the economic value 

of these avoided impacts. Reductions in ambient concentrations of air pollution generally lower 

the risk of future adverse health effects by a small amount for a large population. Therefore, the 
4-6

appropriate economic measure is willingness to pay (WTP) for changes in risk of a health effect. 

For some health effects, such as hospital admissions, WTP estimates are generally not available, 

so we use the cost of treating or mitigating the effect. These cost-of-illness (COI) estimates 

generally (although not necessarily in every case) understate the true value of reductions in risk 

of a health effect. They tend to reflect the direct expenditures related to treatment but not the 

value of avoided pain and suffering from the health effect. The unit values applied in this 

analysis are provided in Table 5-9 of the PM NAAQS RIA for each health endpoint (U.S. EPA, 

2012a).

Avoided premature deaths account for 98% of monetized PM-related benefits. The 

economics literature concerning the appropriate method for valuing reductions in premature 

mortality risk is still developing. The adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of 

premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the economics and public 

policy analysis community. Following the advice of the SAB’s Environmental Economics 

Advisory Committee (SAB-EEAC), the EPA currently uses the value of statistical life (VSL) 

approach in calculating estimates of mortality benefits, because we believe this calculation 

provides the most reasonable single estimate of an individual’s willingness to trade off money 

for reductions in mortality risk (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2000). The VSL approach is a summary 

measure for the value of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of 

people.

EPA continues work to update its guidance on valuing mortality risk reductions, and the 

Agency consulted several times with the SAB-EEAC on the issue. Until updated guidance is 

available, the Agency determined that a single, peer-reviewed estimate applied consistently best 

reflects the SAB-EEAC advice it has received. Therefore, EPA has decided to apply the VSL 

that was vetted and endorsed by the SAB in the Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses

(U.S. EPA, 2000)10 while the Agency continues its efforts to update its guidance on this issue. 

This approach calculates a mean value across VSL estimates derived from 26 labor market and 

contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 1991. The mean VSL across these 

studies is $6.3 million (2000$).11 We then adjust this VSL to account for the currency year used 

in this RIA and to account for income growth from 1990 to the analysis year. 

 10In the updated Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010e), EPA retained the VSL endorsed 

by the SAB with the understanding that further updates to the mortality risk valuation guidance would be 

forthcoming in the near future. 11In 1990$, this VSL is $4.8 million.
4-7

The Agency is committed to using scientifically sound, appropriately reviewed evidence 

in valuing mortality risk reductions and has made significant progress in responding to the SABEEAC’s specific recommendations. In the process, the Agency has identified a number of 

important issues to be considered in updating its mortality risk valuation estimates. These are 

detailed in a white paper on “Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Environmental Policy,” (U.S. 

EPA, 2010c) which recently underwent review by the SAB-EEAC. A meeting with the SAB on 

this paper was held on March 14, 2011 and formal recommendations were transmitted on 

July 29, 2011 (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2011). Draft guidance responding to SAB recommendations will 

be developed shortly.

In valuing premature mortality, we discount the value of premature mortality occurring in 

future years using rates of 3% and 7% (OMB, 2003). We assume that there is a “cessation” lag 

between changes in PM exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects. Although 

the structure of the lag is uncertain, the EPA follows the advice of the SAB-HES to assume a 

segmented lag structure characterized by 30% of mortality reductions in the first year, 50% over 

years 2 to 5, and 20% over the years 6 to 20 after the reduction in PM2.5 (U.S. EPA-SAB, 

2004c). Changes in the cessation lag assumptions do not change the total number of estimated 

deaths but rather the timing of those deaths.

4.1.3 Benefit-per-ton Estimates

Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this 

rule. Instead, we used a “benefit-per-ton” approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. 

EPA has applied in several previous RIAs (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2011b, 2011d, 2012b). These benefitper-ton estimates provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature 

mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of PM2.5 (or PM2.5 precursor such as 

NOx or SO2) from a specified source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the estimates 

from the “Other Non-EGU Point” sector12,13 by the corresponding emission reductions. The 

method used to derive these estimates is described in the Technical Support Document (TSD) on 

estimating the benefits-per-ton of reducing PM2.5 and its precursors (U.S. EPA, 2013). One 

limitation of using the benefit-per-ton approach is an inability to provide estimates of the health 

benefits associated with exposure to HAP, CO, NO2 or ozone.

 12As explained in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013), we only have benefit-per-ton estimates for certain analysis years (i.e., 

2005, 2016, 2020, 2025, and 2030). For this RIA, we selected the benefit-per-ton estimate closest to the analysis 

year for this RIA. 13[Data from year 2016 was used as closest to full implementation year 2018 for this rule, and the sector was 

matched with Non EGU Others category]
4-8

The benefit-per-ton estimates described in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013) were derived using 

the approach published in Fann et al. (2012), but they have since been updated to reflect the 

studies and population data in the final PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). The approach in 

Fann et al. (2012) is similar to the work previously published by Fann et al. (2009), but the 

newer study includes improvements that EPA believes would provide more reliable estimates of 

PM2.5-related health benefits for emissions reductions in specific sectors. Specifically, the air 

quality modeling data reflect sectors that are more narrowly defined. In addition, the updated air 

quality modeling data reflects more recent emissions data (2005 rather than 2001) and has higher 

spatial resolution (12km rather than 36 km grid cells). 

As noted below in the characterization of uncertainty, all benefit-per-ton estimates have 

inherent limitations. Specifically, all national-average benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the 

geographic distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission 

reductions in this rulemaking, and they may not reflect local variability in population density, 

meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors for any specific 

location. 

Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefitper-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their 

impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. The sector-specific modeling does not 

provide estimates of the PM2.5-related benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions, but 

these unquantified benefits are generally small compared to other PM2.5 precursors (U.S. EPA, 

2012a).

4.1.4 PM2.5 Co-Benefits Results

Table 4-2 summarizes the monetized PM-related health benefits by precursor pollutant, 

including the emission reductions and benefit-per-ton estimates using discount rates of 3% and 

7%. Table 4-3 provides a summary of the reductions in health incidences associated with these 

pollution reductions. Figure 4-1 provides a visual representation of the range of PM2.5-related 

benefits estimates using concentration-response functions from Krewski et al. (2009) and 

Lepeule et al. (2012) as well as the 12 functions supplied by experts. In Table 4-4, we provide 

the benefits using our anchor points of Krewski et al., and Lepeule et al., as well as the results 

from the 12 experts’ elicitation on PM mortality.
4-9

Table 4-2. Summary of Monetized PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2- Related Health CoBenefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$)a

Pollutant

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tons)

Benefit 

per ton 

(Krewski, 

3%)

Benefit 

per ton 

(LePeule, 

3%)

Benefit 

per ton 

(Krewski, 

7%)

Benefit 

per ton 

(LePeule, 

7%)

Total Monetized 

Benefits (millions 

2011$ at 3%)

Total Monetized 

Benefits (millions 

2011$ at 7%)

Proposed 

Standards

Direct PM2.5 170 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $45 to $100 $41 to $92

PM2.5 Precursors

SO2 173 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $7 to $16 $6 to $14

Total $52 to $120 $47 to $110

Alternate 

Standards

Direct PM2.5 242 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $64 to $145 $58 to $130

PM2.5 Precursors

SO2 337 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $14 to $31 $12 to $27 

Total $78 to $180 $70 to $160

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. It is important to 

note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from direct exposure to NO2, ozone 

exposure, ecosystem effects, or visibility impairment. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health 

effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 

levels, which drive population exposure. The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor 

emissions to ambient fine particles. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefitper-ton methodology.

Table 4-3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 and its Precursor 

SO2- Related Co-Benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018a

Avoided Premature Mortality Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

Krewski et al. (2009) (adult) 6 9

Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult) 13 20

Avoided Morbidity

Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) 3 5

Acute bronchitis (age 8–12) 9 14

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14) 120 170

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9–11) 170 250

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) 4,700 7,000

Lost work days (age 18–65) 780 1,200

Asthma exacerbation (age 6–18) 170 250

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) 2 2

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age > 18) 2 3

Non-Fatal Heart Attacks (age >18)

Peters et al. (2001) 6 9

Pooled estimate of 4 studies 1 1

a All estimates are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. Confidence intervals are unavailable for 

this analysis because of the benefit-per-ton methodology.

Formatted Table

Formatted Table
4-10

Figure 4-1. Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits of Proposed Brick and Structural Clay

Rule in 2018a

a This graph shows the estimated benefits at discount rates of 3% and 7% using effect coefficients derived from the 

Krewski et al. study and the Lepeule et al. study, as well as 12 effect coefficients derived from EPA’s expert 

elicitation on PM mortality. The results shown are not the direct results from the studies or expert elicitation; 

rather, the estimates are based in part on the concentration-response functions provided in those studies. 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other expert Functions

Proposed Standards

3% 7%

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other expert Functions

Proposed Standards

3% 7%
4-11

Table 4-4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at 

Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)a

Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

3% 7% 3% 7%

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from 

Epidemiology Literature

Krewski et al. $52 $47 $78 $70 

Lepeule et al. $120 $110 $180 $160 

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from Expert 

Elicitation

Expert A $130 $120 $200 $180 

Expert B $110 $98 $160 $150 

Expert C $110 $96 $160 $140 

Expert D $75 $68 $110 $100 

Expert E $170 $160 $260 $230 

(continued)

Formatted Table
4-12

Table 4-4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at 

Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)a (continued)

Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

3% 7% 3% 7%

Expert F $100 $91 $150 $140 

Expert G $63 $57 $94 $85 

Expert H $78 $71 $120 $100 

Expert I $110 $95 $160 $140 

Expert J $86 $78 $130 $120 

Expert K $13 $12 $19 $18 

Expert L $73 $66 $110 $98 

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. Estimates do not include confidence intervals because they 

were derived through the benefit-per-ton technique described above. The benefits estimates from the expert 

elicitation are provided as a reasonable characterization of the uncertainty in the mortality estimates associated 

with the concentration-response function. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the 

benefit-per-ton methodology. 

The specific control technologies for the proposed rule are anticipated to have minor 

secondary disbenefits, including an increase of 28 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), less than two 

tons of PM, three tons of carbon monoxide CO, and 82 tons of Sulfer dioxide (SO2) each year. 

Given the insignificant increase only secondary effects of PM and SO2 were included in the 

monetary evaluation of the actual benefits. 

4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits

In any complex analysis using estimated parameters and inputs from numerous models, 

there are likely to be many sources of uncertainty. This analysis is no exception. This analysis 

includes many data sources as inputs, including emission inventories, air quality data from 

models (with their associated parameters and inputs), population data, population estimates, 

health effect estimates from epidemiology studies, economic data for monetizing benefits, and 

assumptions regarding the future state of the world (i.e., regulations, technology, and human 

behavior). Each of these inputs may be uncertain and would affect the benefits estimate. When 

the uncertainties from each stage of the analysis are compounded, even small uncertainties can 

have large effects on the total quantified benefits. Therefore, the estimates of annual benefits 

should be viewed as representative of the magnitude of benefits expected, rather than the actual 

benefits that would occur every year.

Formatted Table
4-13

This RIA does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM 

NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a) because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring 

data to run the benefits model. However, the results of the uncertainty analyses presented in the 

PM NAAQS RIA can provide some information regarding the uncertainty inherent in the 

benefits results presented in this analysis. Sensitivity analyses conducted for the PM NAAQS 

RIA indicate that alternate cessation lag assumptions could change the PM2.5-related mortality 

benefits discounted at 3% by between 10% and –27% and that alternate income growth 

adjustments could change the PM2.5-related mortality benefits by between 33% and −14%.

Unlike the PM NAAQS RIA, we do not have data on the specific location of the air 

quality changes associated with this rulemaking. As such, it is not feasible to estimate the 

proportion of benefits occurring in different locations, such as designated nonattainment areas. 

Instead, we applied benefit-per-ton estimates, which reflect specific geographic patterns of 

emissions reductions and specific air quality and benefits modeling assumptions. For example, 

these estimates do not reflect local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, 

baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors that might lead to an over-estimate or 

under-estimate of the actual benefits of controlling PM precursors. Use of these $/ton values to 

estimate benefits may lead to higher or lower benefit estimates than if benefits were calculated 

based on direct air quality modeling. Great care should be taken in applying these estimates to

emission reductions occurring in any specific location, as these are all based on national or broad 

regional emission reduction programs and therefore represent average benefits-per-ton over the 

entire United States. The benefits-per-ton for emission reductions in specific locations may be 

very different than the estimates presented here. To the extent that the geographic distributions of 

the emissions reductions for this rule are different than the modeled emissions, the benefits may 

be underestimated or overestimated. In general, there is inherently more uncertainty for new 

sources, which may not be included in the emissions inventory, than existing sources. For more 

information, see the TSD describing the calculation of these benefit-per-ton estimates (U.S. EPA, 

2013).

Our estimate of the total benefits is based on EPA’s interpretation of the best available 

scientific literature and methods and supported by the SAB-HES and the NAS (NRC, 2002). 

Below are key assumptions underlying the estimates for premature mortality which accounts for 

98% of the total monetized PM2.5 benefits: 

1. We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, 

because PM2.5 varies considerably in composition across sources, but the scientific 
4-14

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle 

type. The PM ISA concluded that “many constituents of PM2.5 can be linked with 

multiple health effects, and the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation 

of those constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific outcomes”

(U.S. EPA, 2009).

2. We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is log-linear without a 

threshold in this analysis. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing 

fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM2.5, including both areas that 

do not meet the fine particle standard and those areas that are in attainment, down to 

the lowest modeled concentrations. 

3. We assume that there is a “cessation” lag between the change in PM exposures and 

the total realization of changes in mortality effects. Specifically, we assume that some 

of the incidences of premature mortality related to PM2.5 exposures occur in a 

distributed fashion over the 20 years following exposure based on the advice of the 

SAB-HES (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2004c), which affects the valuation of mortality benefits 

at different discount rates.

In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from 

simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in 

the epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less confident 

in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the 

observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level 

[LML] or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data in the study) allow 

readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above 

different concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the 

estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular 

point at which our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less, and the 

scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the EPA does not view these 

concentration benchmarks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify 

health benefits of air quality improvements.14 Rather, the benefits estimates reported in this RIA 

are the best estimates because they reflect the full range of air quality concentrations associated 

with the emission reduction strategies and because the current body of scientific literature 

indicates that a no-threshold model provides the best estimate of PM-related long-term mortality. 

In other words, although we may have less confidence in the magnitude of the risk at 

 14For a summary of the scientific review statements regarding the lack of a threshold in the PM2.5-mortality 

relationship, see the Technical Support Document (TSD) entitled Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence 

of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-related Mortality (U.S. EPA, 2010b).
4-15

concentrations below these benchmarks, we still have high confidence that PM2.5 is causally 

associated with risk at those lower air quality concentrations.

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data is not available due to time or resource 

limitations. For these rules, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. However, we believe 

that it is still important to characterize the distribution of exposure to baseline air quality levels. 

As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population 

exposed at each PM2.5 level in the baseline of the source apportionment modeling used to 

calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. It is important to note that baseline 

exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates 

population, and change in air quality. In other words, the percentage of the population exposed to 

air pollution below the LML is not the same as the percentage of the population experiencing 

health impacts as a result of a specific emission reduction policy. The most important aspect, 

which we are unable to quantify for rules without rule-specific air quality modeling, is the shift 

in exposure associated with this specific rule. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting 

the LML assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results from rules 

that had air quality modeling. 

Table 4-5 provides the percentage of the population exposed above and below two 

concentration benchmarks (i.e., LML and 1 standard deviation below the mean) in the modeled 

baseline. Figure 4-2 shows a bar chart of the percentage of the population exposed to various air 

quality levels in the baseline, and Figure 4-3 shows a cumulative distribution function of the 

same data. Both figures identify the LML for each of the major cohort studies. 

Table 4-5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration 

Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studiesa

Epidemiology 

Study

Below 1 Std. Dev.

Below AQ Mean

At or Above 1 Std. 

Dev. Below AQ Mean Below LML At or Above LML

Krewski et al. (2009) 89% 11% 7% 93%

Lepeule et al. (2012) N/A N/A 23% 67%

a One standard deviation below the mean is equivalent to the middle of the range between the 10th and 25th

percentile. For Krewski, the LML is 5.8 μg/m3 and one standard deviation below the mean is 11.0 μg/m3

. For 

Lepeule et al., the LML is 8 μg/m3 and we do not have the data for one standard deviation below the mean. It is 

important to emphasize that although we have lower levels of confidence in levels below the LML for each study, 

the scientific evidence does not support the existence of a level below which health effects from exposure to 

PM2.5 do not occur.

Formatted Table
4-16

Figure 4-2. Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline

Among the populations exposed to PM2.5 in the baseline:

93% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study

67% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study

4.2 Unquantified Benefits

The monetized benefits estimated in this RIA only reflect a subset of benefits attributable 

to the health effect reductions associated with ambient fine particles. Data, time, and resource 

limitations prevented EPA from quantifying the impacts to, or monetizing the benefits from 

several important benefit categories, including benefits associated with the potential exposure to 

HAP, ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment due to the absence of air quality modeling 

data for these pollutants in this analysis. This does not imply that there are no benefits associated 

with these emission reductions. In this section, we provide a qualitative description of these 

benefits. Below is a detailed qualitative assessment of health benefits related to multiple HAPs 

that have been reduced among including HAPs metals (i.e. antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Percentage of Population Exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM2.5 Level (μg/m3)

 

LML of Lepeule et al. 

(2012) study

LML of Krewski et 

al. (2009) study
4-17

Figure 4-3. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 

Exposure in the Baseline

Among the populations exposed to PM2.5 in the baseline:

93% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study

67% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study

4.2.1 HAP Benefits

Even though emissions of air toxics from all sources in the U.S. declined by 

approximately 42% since 1990, the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 

predicts that most Americans are exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels that 

have the potential to cause adverse health effects (U.S. EPA, 2011c).15 The levels of air toxics to 

which people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of 

activities in which they engage. In order to identify and prioritize air toxics, emission source 

types and locations that are of greatest potential concern, U.S. EPA conducts the NATA.16 The 

 15The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/.

16The NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations that prevent its use as the sole basis for setting 

regulatory standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 2005 NATA website. Even so, this 

modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting 

regulatory priorities, and informing the decision making process. U.S. EPA.(2011). 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Cumulative percentage of population exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM2.5 Level (μg/m3)

 

LML of Krewski et 

al. (2009) study

LML of Lepeule et 

al. (2012) study
4-18

most recent NATA was conducted for calendar year 2005 and was released in March 2011. 

NATA includes four steps:

1. Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor 

sources

2. Estimating ambient and exposure concentrations of air toxics across the United States

3. Estimating population exposures across the United States

4. Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including 

both cancer and noncancer effects

Based on the 2005 NATA, EPA estimates that about 5% of census tracts nationwide have 

increased cancer risks greater than 100 in a million. The average national cancer risk is about 50 

in a million. Nationwide, the key pollutants that contribute most to the overall cancer risks are 

formaldehyde and benzene.17 Secondary formation (e.g., formaldehyde forming from other 

emitted pollutants) was the largest contributor to cancer risks, while stationary, mobile and 

background sources contribute almost equal portions of the remaining cancer risk.

Noncancer health effects can result from chronic,18 subchronic,19 or acute20 inhalation 

exposures to air toxics, and include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory 

effects as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. According to the 2005 

NATA, about three-fourths of the U.S. population was exposed to an average chronic 

concentration of air toxics that has the potential for adverse noncancer respiratory health effects.

Results from the 2005 NATA indicate that acrolein is the primary driver for noncancer 

respiratory risk. 

Figures 4-4 and 4-5 depict the estimated census tract-level carcinogenic risk and 

noncancer respiratory hazard from the assessment. It is important to note that large reductions in 

HAP emissions may not necessarily translate into significant reductions in health risk because 

 17Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including 

both quantitative (e.g., model-to-monitor ratios) and qualitative (e.g., quality of data, review of emission 

inventories) judgments can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page16.html. 18Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database 

(http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 

approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used 

laboratory animal species). 19Defined in the IRIS database as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 30 days, 

up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately 90 days in typically 

used laboratory animal species). 20Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less.
4-19

Figure 4-4. Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from 

outdoor sources (2005 NATA)

toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of concern. For 

example, acetaldehyde mass emissions are more than double acrolein emissions on a national 

basis, according to EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, the Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) for acrolein is considerably lower 

than that for acetaldehyde, suggesting that acrolein could be potentially more toxic than 

acetaldehyde. Thus, it is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass 

of the targeted emissions.

Due to methodology and time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we were 

unable to estimate the benefits associated with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced 

as a result of these rules. In a few previous analyses of the benefits of reductions in HAP, EPA 

has quantified the benefits of potential reductions in the incidences of cancer and non-cancer risk 

(e.g., U.S. EPA, 1995). In those analyses, EPA relied on unit risk factors (URF) developed 
4-20

Figure 4-5. Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP 

exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)

through risk assessment procedures.21 These URFs are designed to be conservative, and as such, 

are more likely to represent the high end of the distribution of risk rather than a best or most 

likely estimate of risk. As the purpose of a benefit analysis is to describe the benefits most likely

to occur from a reduction in pollution, use of high-end, conservative risk estimates would 

overestimate the benefits of the regulation. While we used high-end risk estimates in past 

analyses, advice from the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that we avoid 

using high-end estimates in benefit analyses (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2002). Since this time, EPA has 

continued to develop better methods for analyzing the benefits of reductions in HAP.

As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 

(U.S. EPA, 2011a), EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects associated with 

 21The unit risk factor is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the 

probability of contracting cancer from a 70-year lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m3 of 

a pollutant.
4-21

reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009). 

While reviewing the draft report, EPA’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 

concluded that “the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of 

reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to a lack of 

exposure-response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the 

difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and the challenges of tracking health 

progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods” (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2008).

In 2009, EPA convened a workshop to address the inherent complexities, limitations, and 

uncertainties in current methods to quantify the benefits of reducing HAP. Recommendations 

from this workshop included identifying research priorities, focusing on susceptible and 

vulnerable populations, and improving dose-response relationships (Gwinn et al., 2011). 

In summary, monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires 

several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to 

carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). 

Due to methodology and time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we did not attempt to 

monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we provide a 

qualitative analysis of the health effects associated with the HAP anticipated to be reduced by 

these rules. EPA remains committed to improving methods for estimating HAP benefits by 

continuing to explore additional concepts of benefits, including changes in the distribution of 

risk. 

Below we describe the health effects associated with the HAP that would be reduced by 

this rulemaking. 

4.2.1.1 Arsenic

Arsenic, a naturally occurring element, is found throughout the environment and is 

considered toxic through the oral, inhalation and dermal routes. Acute (short-term) high-level 

inhalation exposure to As dust or fumes has resulted in gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea, 

abdominal pain, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage); central and peripheral nervous system 

disorders have occurred in workers acutely exposed to inorganic As. Chronic (long-term) 

inhalation exposure to inorganic As in humans is associated with irritation of the skin and 

mucous membranes. Chronic inhalation can also lead to conjunctivitis, irritation of the throat and 
4-22

respiratory tract and perforation of the nasal septum.22 Chronic oral exposure has resulted in 

gastrointestinal effects, anemia, peripheral neuropathy, skin lesions, hyperpigmentation, and liver 

or kidney damage in humans. Inorganic As exposure in humans, by the inhalation route, has been 

shown to be strongly associated with lung cancer, while ingestion of inorganic As in humans has 

been linked to a form of skin cancer and also to bladder, liver, and lung cancer. EPA has 

classified inorganic As as a Group A, human carcinogen.23

4.2.1.2 Cadmium (Cd)24

Breathing air with lower levels of Cd over long periods of time (for years) results in a 

build-up of Cd in the kidney, and if sufficiently high, may result in kidney disease. Lung cancer 

has been found in some studies of workers exposed to Cd in the air and studies of rats that 

inhaled Cd. The U.S. DHHS has determined that Cd and Cd compounds are known human 

carcinogens. The IARC has determined that Cd is carcinogenic to humans. EPA has determined 

that Cd is a probable human carcinogen.

4.2.1.3 Chlorine (Cl2)

The acute (short term) toxic effects of Cl2 are primarily due to its corrosive properties.

Chlorine is a strong oxidant that upon contact with water moist tissue (e.g., eyes, skin, and upper 

respiratory tract) can produce major tissue damage.25 Chronic inhalation exposure to low 

concentrations of Cl2 (1 to 10 parts per million, ppm) may cause eye and nasal irritation, sore 

throat, and coughing. Chronic exposure to Cl2, usually in the workplace, has been reported to 

cause corrosion of the teeth. Inhalation of higher concentrations of Cl2 gas (greater than 15 ppm) 

can rapidly lead to respiratory distress with airway constriction and accumulation of fluid in the 

lungs (pulmonary edema). Exposed individuals may have immediate onset of rapid breathing, 

blue discoloration of the skin, wheezing, Rales or hemoptysis (coughing up blood or blood-stain 

 22Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Arsenic. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available on the Internet at < 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg168.html#bookmark02>

23U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Integrated Risk Information System 

File for Arsenic. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at: 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0278.htm.

24Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008. Public Health Statement for Cadmium. CAS# 

1306-19-0. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=46&tid=15>. 25Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Chlorine. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=198&tid=36.
4-23

sputum). Intoxication with high concentrations of Cl2 may induce lung collapse. Exposure to Cl2

can lead to reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), a chemical irritant-induced type of 

asthma. Dermal exposure to Cl2 may cause irritation, burns, inflammation and blisters. EPA has 

not classified Cl2 with respect to carcinogenicity.

4.2.1.4 Chromium (Cr)26

Chromium may be emitted in two forms, trivalent Cr (Cr+3) or hexavalent Cr (Cr+6).

The respiratory tract is the major target organ for Cr+6 toxicity, for acute and chronic inhalation 

exposures. Shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing have been reported from acute exposure 

to Cr+6, while perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary 

function, pneumonia, and other respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposures.

Limited human studies suggest that Cr+6 inhalation exposure may be associated with 

complications during pregnancy and childbirth, but there are no supporting data from animal 

studies reporting reproductive effects from inhalation exposure to Cr+6. Human and animal 

studies have clearly established the carcinogenic potential of Cr+6 by the inhalation route, 

resulting in an increased risk of lung cancer. EPA has classified Cr+6 as a Group A, human 

carcinogen. Trivalent Cr is less toxic than Cr+6. The respiratory tract is also the major target 

organ for Cr+3 toxicity, similar to Cr+6. EPA has not classified Cr+3 with respect to 

carcinogenicity.

4.2.1.5 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

Hydrogen chloride is a corrosive gas that can cause irritation of the mucous membranes 

of the nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes throat irritation, and 

levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely tolerable for 1 hour.27 The greatest impact is on the upper 

respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can rapidly lead to swelling and spasm of the 

throat and suffocation. Most seriously exposed persons have immediate onset of rapid breathing, 

blue coloring of the skin, and narrowing of the bronchioles. Exposure to HCl can lead to RADS, 

a chemically- or irritant-induced type of asthma. Children may be more vulnerable to corrosive 

agents than adults because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also 

be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to 

 26U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Chromium VI. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 27Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen 

Chloride. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02.
4-24

evacuate an area promptly when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not been classified for 

carcinogenic effects.28

4.2.1.6 Hydrogen cyanide (HCN)29

Hydrogen cyanide is highly toxic by all routes of exposure and may cause abrupt onset of 

profound central nervous system, cardiovascular, and respiratory effects, leading to death within 

minutes. Exposure to lower concentrations of hydrogen cyanide may produce eye irritation, 

headache, confusion, nausea, and vomiting followed in some cases by coma and death. 

Hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant. By binding to mitochondrial cytochrome 

oxidase, it prevents the utilization of oxygen in cellular metabolism. The central nervous system 

and myocardium are particularly sensitive to the toxic effects of cyanide.

4.2.1.7 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)30

Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory 

damage in humans, including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term) oral 

exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may also 

be useful for the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride may cause 

dental fluorosis. One study reported menstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed to 

fluoride via inhalation. The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity.

4.2.1.8 Lead (Pb)31

The main target for Pb toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and children. Longterm exposure of adults to Pb at work has resulted in decreased performance in some tests that 

measure functions of the nervous system. Lead exposure may also cause weakness in fingers, 

wrists, or ankles. Lead exposure also causes small increases in blood pressure, particularly in 

middle-aged and older people. Lead exposure may also cause anemia.

 28U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Integrated Risk Information System File of Hydrogen 

Chloride. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This 

material is available electronically at .http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm. 29All health effects language for this section came from: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR). 2007. Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) (CAS#: 7782-50-5). Atlanta, 

GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/Mhmi/mmg8.html#bookmark02. 30U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated 

with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. EPA/600/8-89/002F. Environmental Criteria and Assessment 

Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 

1989. 31Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Public Health Statement for Lead. CAS#: 

7439-92-1. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on 

the Internet at < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/phs13.html>.
4-25

Children are more sensitive to the health effects of Pb than adults. No safe blood Pb level 

in children has been determined. At lower levels of exposure, Pb can affect a child’s mental and 

physical growth. Fetuses exposed to Pb in the womb may be born prematurely and have lower 

weights at birth. Exposure in the womb, in infancy, or in early childhood also may slow mental 

development and cause lower intelligence later in childhood. There is evidence that these effects 

may persist beyond childhood.

There are insufficient data from epidemiologic studies alone to conclude that Pb causes 

cancer (is carcinogenic) in humans. The DHHS has determined that Pb and Pb compounds are 

reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens based on limited evidence from studies in 

humans and sufficient evidence from animal studies, and the EPA has determined that Pb is a 

probable human carcinogen.

4.2.1.9 Manganese (Mn)32

Health effects in humans have been associated with both deficiencies and excess intakes 

of Mn. Chronic exposure to high levels of Mn by inhalation in humans results primarily in 

central nervous system effects. Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand coordination 

were affected in chronically-exposed workers. Manganism, characterized by feelings of 

weakness and lethargy, tremors, a masklike face, and psychological disturbances, may result 

from chronic exposure to higher levels. Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male 

workers afflicted with Manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. The EPA has classified Mn 

in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.

4.2.1.10 Mercury (Hg)

Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form, methylmercury 

(MeHg). Because Hg is a persistent pollutant, MeHg accumulates in the food chain, especially 

the tissue of fish. When people consume these fish, they consume MeHg. In 2000, the NAS 

Study was issued which provides a thorough review of the effects of MeHg on human health 

(NRC, 2000).

33 Many of the peer-reviewed articles cited in this section are publications 

originally cited in the MeHg Study. In addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to 

obtain other related and more recent publications to complement the material summarized by the 

NRC in 2000.

 32U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Manganese. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 33National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press.
4-26

In its review of the literature, the NAS found neurodevelopmental effects to be the most 

sensitive and best documented endpoints and appropriate for establishing an RfD (NRC, 2000); 

in particular NAS supported the use of results from neurobehavioral or neuropsychological tests. 

The NAS report noted that studies in animals reported sensory effects as well as effects on brain 

development and memory functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology studies. 

The NAS noted that their recommended endpoints for an RfD are associated with the ability of 

children to learn and to succeed in school. They concluded the following: “The population at 

highest risk is the children of women who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood during 

pregnancy. The committee concludes that the risk to that population is likely to be sufficient to 

result in an increase in the number of children who have to struggle to keep up in school.”

The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available up to 2000. Based on these 

and other studies, the NRC concluded that “Although the data base is not as extensive for 

cardiovascular effects as it is for other end points (i.e. neurologic effects) the cardiovascular 

system appears to be a target for MeHg toxicity in humans and animals.” The NRC also stated 

that “additional studies are needed to better characterize the effect of methylmercury exposure on 

blood pressure and cardiovascular function at various stages of life.”

Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 2000. The EPA did not to 

develop a quantitative dose-response assessment for cardiovascular effects associated with 

MeHg exposures, as there is no consensus among scientists on the dose-response functions for 

these effects. In addition, there is inconsistency among available studies as to the association 

between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular system effects. The pharmacokinetics of 

some of the exposure measures (such as toenail Hg levels) are not well understood. The studies 

have not yet received the review and scrutiny of the more well-established neurotoxicity data 

base. 

The Mercury Study34 noted that MeHg is not a potent mutagen but is capable of causing 

chromosomal damage in a number of experimental systems. The NAS concluded that evidence 

that human exposure to MeHg caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they note that some earlier 

studies showing chromosomal damage in lymphocytes may not have controlled sufficiently for 

potential confounders. One study of adults living in the Tapajós River region in Brazil (Amorim 

et al., 2000) reported a direct relationship between MeHg concentration in hair and DNA damage 

 34U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress, EPA–HQ–OAR–

2009–0234–3054. December. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/hg/report.htm>.
4-27

in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes35. Long-term MeHg exposures in this 

population were believed to occur through consumption of fish, suggesting that genotoxic effects 

(largely chromosomal aberrations) may result from dietary, chronic MeHg exposures similar to 

and above those seen in the Faroes and Seychelles populations.

Although exposure to some forms of Hg can result in a decrease in immune activity or an 

autoimmune response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited 

(NRC, 2000)36.

Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a “possible” human 

carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in IRIS (U.S. 

EPA, 2002) 37,38. The existing evidence supporting the possibility of carcinogenic effects in 

humans from low-dose chronic exposures is tenuous. Multiple human epidemiological studies 

have found no significant association between Hg exposure and overall cancer incidence, 

although a few studies have shown an association between Hg exposure and specific types of 

cancer incidence (e.g., acute leukemia and liver cancer) (NRC, 2000).

There is also some evidence of reproductive and renal toxicity in humans from MeHg 

exposure. However, overall, human data regarding reproductive, renal, and hematological 

toxicity from MeHg are very limited and are based on either studies of the two high-dose 

poisoning episodes in Iraq and Japan or animal data, rather than epidemiological studies of 

chronic exposures at the levels of interest in this analysis.

4.2.1.11 Nickel (Ni)39

Respiratory effects have been reported in humans from inhalation exposure to Ni. No 

information is available regarding the reproductive or developmental effects of Ni in humans, but 

 35Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Lucotte. 2000. 

Cytogenetic damage related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. 

Bras. Ciênc. 72(4): 497-507. 36Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA. 37U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 

Methylmercury. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. Available 

online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm 38International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of 

Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in the 

Glass Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H. Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene 

sulphonanilide. Br. J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303-308 (as cited in NRC 2000). 39 Nickel (IARC Summary & Evaluation , Volume 49, 1990), Please check if there are relevant to this 

sectorhttp://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol49/nickel.html
4-28

animal studies have reported such effects. Human and animal studies have reported an increased 

risk of lung and nasal cancers from exposure to Ni refinery dusts and nickel subsulfide. The EPA 

has classified nickel subsulfide as a human carcinogen and nickel carbonyl as a probable human 

carcinogen40,41. The IARC has classified Ni compounds as carcinogenic to humans.

4.2.1.12 Selenium (Se)42

Acute exposure to elemental Se, hydrogen selenide, and selenium dioxide (SeO2) by 

inhalation results primarily in respiratory effects, such as irritation of the mucous membranes, 

pulmonary edema, severe bronchitis, and bronchial pneumonia. One Se compound, selenium 

sulfide, is carcinogenic in animals exposed orally. The EPA has classified elemental Se as a 

Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, and selenium sulfide as a Group B2, 

probable human carcinogen.

4.2.2 Additional SO2 Health Co-Benefits

In addition to being a precursor to PM2.5, SO2 emissions are also associated with a 

variety of adverse health effects associated with direct exposure. Unfortunately, we were unable 

to estimate the health co-benefits associated with reduced SO2 in this analysis because we do not 

have air quality modeling data available. Therefore, this analysis only quantifies and monetizes 

the PM2.5 co-benefits associated with the reductions in SO2 emissions. 

Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory 

studies, the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Sulfur —Health Criteria (SO2 ISA) 

concluded that there is a causal relationship between respiratory health effects and short-term 

exposure to SO2 (U.S. EPA, 2008a). The immediate effect of SO2 on the respiratory system in 

humans is bronchoconstriction. Asthmatics are more sensitive to the effects of SO2 likely 

resulting from preexisting inflammation associated with this disease. A clear concentrationresponse relationship has been demonstrated in laboratory studies following exposures to SO2 at 

concentrations between 20 and 100 ppb, both in terms of increasing severity of effect and 

percentage of asthmatics adversely affected. Based on our review of this information, we 

identified four short-term morbidity endpoints that the SO2 ISA identified as a “causal 

relationship”: asthma exacerbation, respiratory-related emergency department visits, and 

 40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Subsulfide. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Carbonyl. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Selenium and Compounds. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999.
4-29

respiratory-related hospitalizations. The differing evidence and associated strength of the 

evidence for these different effects is described in detail in the SO2 ISA. The SO2 ISA also 

concluded that the relationship between short-term SO2 exposure and premature mortality was 

“suggestive of a causal relationship” because it is difficult to attribute the mortality risk effects to 

SO2 alone. Although the SO2 ISA stated that studies are generally consistent in reporting a 

relationship between SO2 exposure and mortality, there was a lack of robustness of the observed 

associations to adjustment for pollutants. We did not quantify these co-benefits due to data 

constraints.

4.2.3 Visibility Impairment Co-Benefits

Reducing secondary formation of PM2.5 would improve levels visibility in the U.S. 

because suspended particles and gases degrade visibility by scattering and absorbing light (U.S. 

EPA, 2009). Fine particles with significant light-extinction efficiencies include sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil (Sisler, 1996). Visibility has direct significance to 

people’s enjoyment of daily activities and their overall sense of wellbeing. Good visibility 

increases the quality of life where individuals live and work, and where they engage in 

recreational activities. Particulate sulfate is the dominant source of regional haze in the eastern 

U.S. and particulate nitrate is an important contributor to light extinction in California and the 

upper Midwestern U.S., particularly during winter (U.S. EPA, 2009). Previous analyses (U.S. 

EPA, 2011a) show that visibility benefits can be a significant welfare benefit category. Without 

air quality modeling, we are not unable to estimate visibility related benefits, nor are we able to 

determine whether the emission reductions associated with this rule would be likely to have a 

significant impact on visibility in urban areas or Class I areas.

4.3 References

Abt Associates, Inc. 2012. BenMAP User’s Manual Appendices. Prepared for U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/models/BenMAPAppendicesOct2012.pdf>.

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “The influence of location, source, and emission 

type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.” Air 

Qual Atmos Health 2:169–176.

Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and C.M. Fulcher. 2012. “Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits 

of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the 

U.S.” Environment International 49 41–151. 

Gwinn, M.R., J. Craig, D.A. Axelrad, R. Cook, C. Dockins, N. Fann, R. Fegley, D.E. Guinnup, 

G. Helfand, B. Hubbell, S.L. Mazur, T. Palma, R.L. Smith, J. Vandenberg, and 
4-30

B. Sonawane. 2011. “Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air 

pollutants—summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations.” Environ Health 

Perspect. Jan; 119(1): p. 125-30.

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2009. Section 812 Prospective Study of the Benefits 

and Costs of the Clean Air Act: Air Toxics Case Study—Health Benefits of Benzene 

Reductions in Houston, 1990–2020. Final Report, July 14, 2009. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/dec09/812CAAA_Benzene_Houston_Final_Report_Jul

y_2009.pdf>.

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2006. Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Concentration-Response Relationship Between PM2.5 Exposure and Mortality. Prepared 

for: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_tsd_expert_interview_summari

es.pdf>.

Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi, Y, et al. 2009. Extended follow-up and 

spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution 

and mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA.

Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. “Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and 

Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.”

Environ Health Perspect. Jul;120(7):965-70. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air 

Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. 

Washington, DC. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.html.

Roman, Henry A., Katherine D. Walker, Tyra L. Walsh, Lisa Conner, Harvey M. Richmond, 

Bryan J. Hubbell, and Patrick L. Kinney. 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.” Environ. 

Sci. Technol., 42(7):2268-2274.

Sisler, J.F. 1996. Spatial and seasonal patterns and long-term variability of the composition of 

the haze in the United States: an analysis of data from the IMPROVE network. CIRA 

Report, ISSN 0737-5352-32, Colorado State University.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Petroleum Refinery NESHAP. Revised Draft for Promulgation. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=705>.
4-31

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available on the Internet 

at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/cover.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2002. 

Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Developing Best Estimates of Dose-Response Functions An SAB Workshop Report of an 

EPA/SAB Workshop (Final Report). EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001. January. Available 

on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/34355712EC011A358525719A0

05BF6F6/$File/ecwkshp02001%2Bappa-g.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 

Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC: 

U.S. EPA. February. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Sulfur Oxides—Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available at:

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008d. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur–Ecological Criteria National (Final Report). National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139. 

December. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment – RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Carbon Monoxide. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. EPA/600/R-09/019F. January. Available at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document: 

Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the ConcentrationResponse Function for PM2.5-related Mortality. Research Triangle Park, NC. June.

Available on the Internet at <www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf>.
4-32

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions 

for Environmental Policy: A White Paper: SAB Review Draft. National Center for 

Environmental Economics December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0563-1.pdf/$file/EE-0563-1.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010e. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-10-001. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. December. Available on the Internet 

at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-

50.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. EPA-452/R-11-011. December. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011c. 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

March. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011d. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. February. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/boilersriafinal110221_psg.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012a. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. 

EPA-452/R-12-003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Petroleum Refineries New Source Performance Standards Ja. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. June. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/refineries_nsps_ja_final_ria.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. Technical Support Document: 

Estimating the Benefit per ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 17 sectors. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2008. 

Characterizing Uncertainty in Particulate Matter Benefits Using Expert Elicitation. 

EPA-COUNCIL-08-002. July. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/43B91173651AED9E85257487004EA6C

B/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-002-unsigned.pdf>.
4-33

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2000. An 

SAB Report on EPA’s White Paper Valuing the Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction.

EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013. July. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/41334524148BCCD6852571A70

0516498/$File/eeacf013.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2004c.

Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Response to Agency Request on 

Cessation Lag. EPA-COUNCIL-LTR-05-001. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/39F44B098DB49F3C85257170005293E0/

$File/council_ltr_05_001.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2008. 

Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990–2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-

001. July. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8

3/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-unsigned.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009b. 

Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External 

Review Draft, December 2008). EPA-COUNCIL-09-008. May. Available on the Internet 

at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-

unsigned.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009c. 

Review of Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Second External Review 

Draft, July 2009). EPA-CASAC-10-001. November. Available on the Internet at

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/151B1F83B023145585257678006836B9/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-001-unsigned.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2010a. 

Review of EPA’s DRAFT Health Benefits of the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of 

the Clean Air Act. EPA-COUNCIL-10-001. June. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/9288428b8eeea4c885257242006935a3/59e0

6b6c5ca66597852575e7006c5d09!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.3#2.>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2011. 

Review of Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper 

(December 10, 2010). EPA-SAB-11-011 July. Available on the Internet at

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/298E1F50F844BC23852578DC0059A616/$

File/EPA-SAB-11-011-unsigned.pdf>.
5-1

SECTION 5

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

EPA prepares an EIA to provide decision makers with a measure of the social costs of 

using resources to comply with a regulation (EPA, 2010). The social costs can then be compared

with estimated social benefits (as presented in Section 4). As noted in EPA’s (2010) Guidelines 

for Preparing Economic Analyses, several tools are available to estimate social costs and range

from simple direct compliance cost methods to the development of a more complex market

analysis that estimates market changes (e.g., price and consumption) and economic welfare

changes (e.g., changes in consumer and producer surplus).

The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) adopted a market-level 

analysis described in the Office’s resource manual (EPA, 1999a). The market approach uses a 

single-period static partial-equilibrium model to compare prepolicy market baselines with 

expected post policy outcomes in these markets. Key measures in this analysis include

■ market-level effects (market prices, changes in domestic production and

consumption, and international trade) and

■ social costs and their distribution between producers and consumers.

We also assessed the impacts on employment in the brick industry through a qualitative 

discussion and a quantitative analysis that is linked to the results of the market-level analysis. 

Finally, we assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of large and 

small ultimate parent companies that own affected BSCP facilities. To do this, we used a 

screening analysis required to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). 

5.1 Market Analysis

The partial-equilibrium analysis includes a market model that simulates how stakeholders 

(consumers and firms) might respond to the additional regulatory program costs. EPA used a 

perfectly competitive regional market model that accounts for the fact that brick shipments are 

not likely to be shipped long distances because of weight and transportation costs. In regional 

markets, it is more likely that only a few firms offer similar brick products and other market 

structures may be applicable (i.e., oligopoly). If market power exists, the use of a perfectly 

competitive model may understate the social costs of the proposed rule. Appendix A provides 

additional details about the economic model equations and parameters.
5-2

5.1.1 Market-Level Results

Market-level impacts include the price and production adjustments for bricks. As shown 

in Table 5-1, the average national price under the proposed standards increases by 1.4%, or $3.29 

per 1,000 SBE, while overall domestic production falls by 1.1%, or 38 million bricks per year. 

These values are lower than the alternate approach: the average national price increase for the 

alternate standards is 2.0% and brick U.S. brick production falls by about 55 million bricks.

Price increases are the highest in regions with high unit compliance costs. For example, 

the East North Central market price increase ($8.43 per 1,000 SBE) is associated with higher 

per-unit compliance costs ($18.72 per 1,000 SBE). Under the proposed standards, one region 

does not include any facilities with incremental compliance costs (New England). As a result, 

there are no market-level changes. For all of the census regions, the average regional price 

increases between 0% and 2.8%. Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 2.2% and

0 to 14 million bricks per year. Under the alternate standards, the average regional price 

increases between 0% and 3.9%. Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 3.1%, or 0 

to 21 million bricks per year.

5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates

Under the proposed standards, the economic model suggests that industries are able to 

pass on $11.4 million (2011$) of the rule’s costs to U.S. households in the form of higher prices 

(Table 5-1). Existing U.S. industries’ surplus falls by $9.1 million, and the total U.S. economic 

surplus loss is $20.6 million. Under the alternate standards, total U.S. economic surplus loss is 

$10 million higher ($30.5 million). Because higher brick prices reduce consumption, the 

estimated compliance costs are lower than the engineering cost estimate that does not account for 

price responses. However, the differences are very small (i.e., less than 0.01%). 

5.2 Employment Impacts of the Proposed Rule

Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on 

job creation and employment. According to the Executive Order, “our regulatory system must 

protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, 

innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science”

(Executive Order 13563, 2011). Although standard benefit-cost analyses have not typically 
5-3

Table 5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP 

Census Region

Incremental Unit 

Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE)

Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:

Absolute Percent Absolute Percent

Consumer 

Surplus

Producer 

Surplus

Total 

Surplus

Proposed Standards

New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Middle Atlantic $3.55 $1.36 0.4% −703 −0.3% −$0.3 −$0.2 −$0.5

East North Central $18.72 $8.43 2.8% −6,364 −2.2% −$2.4 −$1.9 −$4.3

West North Central $6.81 $3.79 1.4% −2,000 −1.1% −$0.7 −$0.6 −$1.2

South Atlantic $6.17 $3.15 1.4% −14,228 −1.1% −$4.1 −$3.3 −$7.4

East South Central $6.17 $3.43 1.8% −5,727 −1.5% −$1.3 −$1.1 −$2.4

West South Central $5.15 $2.86 1.2% −8,898 −1.0% −$2.5 −$2.0 −$4.6

Mountain $1.23 $0.34 0.1% −86 −0.1% $0.0 $0.0 −$0.1

Pacific $2.35 $1.11 0.2% −120 −0.2% −$0.1 −$0.1 −$0.1

U.S. Average/Total $6.55 $3.29 1.4% −38,126 −1.1% −$11.4 −$9.1 −$20.6

(continued)

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted Table
5-4

Table 5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP (continued)

Census Region

Incremental Unit 

Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE)

Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:

Absolute Percent Absolute Percent

Consumer 

Surplus

Producer 

Surplus

Total 

Surplus

Alternate Standards

New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Middle Atlantic $5.39 $2.07 0.6% −1,068 −0.5% −$0.4 −$0.3 −$0.8

East North Central $26.19 $11.79 3.9% −8,901 −3.1% −$3.3 −$2.6 −$5.9

West North Central $10.54 $5.85 2.1% −3,093 −1.7% −$1.1 −$0.9 −$1.9

South Atlantic $8.99 $4.60 2.0% −20,743 −1.6% −$6.0 −$4.8 −$10.7

East South Central $9.13 $5.07 2.7% −8,473 −2.2% −$2.0 −$1.6 −$3.5

West South Central $7.44 $4.13 1.8% −12,854 −1.4% −$3.7 −$2.9 −$6.6

Mountain $6.05 $1.68 0.5% −424 −0.4% −$0.2 −$0.2 −$0.3

Pacific $11.02 $5.21 0.9% −563 −0.8% −$0.4 −$0.3 −$0.7

U.S. Average/Total $9.74 $4.90 2.0% −56,118 −1.6% −$17.0 −$13.5 −$30.5

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted Table
5-5

included a separate analysis of regulation-induced employment impacts,43 during periods of 

sustained high unemployment, employment impacts are of particular concern and questions may 

arise about their existence and magnitude. This chapter provides a conceptual framework for 

considering the potential influence of environmental regulation on employment in the U.S. 

economy and discusses the limited empirical literature that is available. The chapter then 

discusses the potential employment impacts in the BSCP industry, as well as the environmental 

protection sector (e.g., for construction, manufacture, installation and operation of needed 

pollution control equipment). Section 5.2.1 describes the economic theory used for analyzing 

regulation-induced employment impacts, discussing how standard neoclassical theory alone does 

not point to a definitive net effect of regulation on labor demand for regulated firms. Section 

5.2.2 presents an overview of the peer-reviewed literature relevant to evaluating the effect of 

environmental regulation on employment. Section 5.2.3 discusses macroeconomic net 

employment effects. EPA is currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert 

panel on economy-wide impacts, including employment effects. Section 5.2.4 addresses the 

particular influence of this proposed rule on employment. Finally, Section 5.2.5 offers several 

conclusions.

5.2.1 Theory

The effects of environmental regulation on employment are difficult to disentangle from 

other economic changes and business decisions that affect employment, over time and across 

regions and industries. Labor markets respond to regulation in complex ways. That response 

depends on the elasticities of demand and supply for labor and the degree of labor market 

imperfections (e.g., wage stickiness, long-term unemployment). The unit of measurement (e.g., 

number of jobs, types of job hours worked, or earnings) may affect observability of that 

response. Net employment impacts are composed of a mix of potential declines and gains in 

different areas of the economy (i.e., the directly regulated sector, upstream and downstream 

sectors, and the pollution abatement sector) and over time. In light of these difficulties, economic

theory provides a constructive framework for approaching these assessments and for better 

understanding the inherent complexities in such assessments. In this section, we briefly describe 

theory relevant to the impact of regulation on labor demand at the regulated firm, in the regulated 

industry, and in the environmental protection sector and highlight the importance of considering 

potential effects of regulation on labor supply, a topic addressed further in a subsequent section. 

 43Labor expenses do, however, contribute toward total costs in EPA’s standard benefit-cost analyses.
5-6

Neoclassical microeconomic theory describes how profit-maximizing firms adjust their 

use of productive inputs in response to changes in their economic conditions.44 In this 

framework, labor is one of many inputs to production, along with capital, energy, and materials. 

In competitive output markets, profit-maximizing firms take prices as given and choose 

quantities of inputs and outputs to maximize profit. Factor demand at the firm, then, is 

determined by input and output prices.45,46

Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) have specifically 

tailored one version of the standard neoclassical model to analyze how environmental regulations 

affect labor demand decisions.47 Environmental regulation is modeled as effectively requiring 

certain factors of production, such as pollution abatement capital investment, that would not be 

freely chosen by profit-maximizing/cost-minimizing firms. 

In Berman and Bui’s (2001, p. 274–75) theoretical model, the change in a firm’s labor 

demand arising from a change in regulation is decomposed into two main components: output 

and substitution effects.48 For the output effect, by affecting the marginal cost of production, 

regulation affects the profit-maximizing quantity of output. The output effect describes how, if 

labor intensity of production is held constant, a decrease in output generally leads to a decrease 

in labor demand. However, as noted by Berman and Bui, although it is often assumed that 

regulation increases marginal cost, and thereby reduces output, it need not be the case. A 

regulation could induce a firm to upgrade to less polluting and more efficient equipment that 

lowers marginal production costs, for example. In such a case, output could theoretically 

increase. 

The substitution effect describes how, holding output constant, regulation affects the 

labor intensity of production. Although increased environmental regulation generally results in 

higher utilization of production factors such as pollution control equipment and energy to operate 

that equipment, the resulting impact on labor demand is ambiguous. For example, equipment 

inspection requirements, specialized waste handling, or pollution technologies that alter the 

 44See Layard and Walters (1978), a standard microeconomic theory textbook, for a discussion. 45See Hamermesh (1993), Chapter 2, for a derivation of the firm’s labor demand function from cost-minimization. 46In this framework, labor demand is a function of quantity of output and prices (of both outputs and inputs). 47Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) used a cost-minimization framework, which is a 

special case of profit-maximization with fixed output quantities. 48The authors also discuss a third component, the impact of regulation on factor prices but conclude that this effect is 

unlikely to be important for large competitive factor markets, such as labor and capital. Morgenstern, Pizer, and 

Shih (2002) used a very similar model, but they break the employment effect into three parts: 1) the demand 

effect, 2) the cost effect, and 3) the factor-shift effect.
5-7

production process may affect the number of workers necessary to produce a unit of output.

Berman and Bui (2001) modeled the substitution effect as the effect of regulation on “quasifixed” pollution control equipment and expenditures that are required by the regulation and the 

corresponding change in labor intensity of production. Within the production theory framework, 

when levels of a given set of inputs are fixed by external constraints such as regulatory 

requirements, rather than allowing the firm to freely choose all inputs under cost-minimization 

alone, these inputs are described as “quasi-fixed.” For example, materials would be a “quasifixed” factor if there were specific requirements for landfill liner construction, but the footprint 

of the landfill was flexible. Brown and Christensen (1981) developed a partial static equilibrium 

model of production with quasi-fixed factors, which Berman and Bui (2001) extended to analyze 

environmental regulations with technology-based standards. 

In summary, because the output and substitution effects may be both positive, both 

negative, or some combination, standard neoclassical theory alone does not point to a definitive 

net effect of regulation on labor demand at regulated firms. Operating within the bounds of 

standard neoclassical theory, however, rough estimation of net employment effects is possible 

with empirical study, specific to the regulated firms, when data and methods of sufficient detail 

and quality are available. The available literature illustrates some of the difficulties for empirical 

estimation: studies sometimes rely on confidential plant-level employment data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau, possibly combined with pollution abatement expenditure data that are too dated 

to be reliably informative. In addition, the most commonly used empirical methods in the 

literature do not permit the estimation of net effects. These studies will be discussed at greater 

length later in this chapter. 

The above describes a conceptual framework for analyzing potential employment effects 

at a particular firm within a regulated industry. It is important to emphasize that employment 

impacts at a particular firm will not necessarily represent impacts for the overall industry; 

therefore, the theoretic approach requires some adjustment when applied at the industry level.

As stated, the responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on how the output and 

substitution effects interact. 49 At the industry level, labor demand will be more responsive when 

(1) the price elasticity of demand for the product is high, (2) other factors of production can be 

easily substituted for labor, (3) the supply of other factors is highly elastic, or (4) labor costs are 

a large share of the total costs of production.50 So, for example, if all firms in the industry are 

 49On Marshall’s laws of derived demand, see Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), Chapter 4.

50See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), p. 108. 
5-8

faced with the same compliance costs of regulation and product demand is inelastic, then 

industry output may not change much at all, and output of individual firms may only be slightly 

changed.51 In this case, the output effect may be small, while the substitution effect will still 

depend on the degree of substitutability or complementarity between factors of production. 

Continuing the example, if new pollution control equipment requires labor to install and operate, 

labor is more of a complement than a substitute. In this case, the substitution effect may be 

positive, and if the output effect is small or zero, the total effect may then be positive. As with 

the potential effects for an individual firm, theory alone is unable to determine the sign or 

magnitude of industry-level regulatory effects on labor. Determining these signs and magnitudes 

requires additional sector-specific empirical study. To conduct such targeted research would 

require estimates of product demand elasticity; production factor substitutability; supply 

elasticity of production factors; and the share of total costs contributed by wages, by industry, 

and perhaps even by facility. For environmental rules, many of these data items are not publicly 

available, would require significant time and resources to access confidential U.S. Census data 

for research, and also would not be necessary for other components of a typical RIA. 

In addition to changes to labor demand in the regulated industry, net employment impacts 

encompass changes within the environmental protection sector and, potentially, in other related 

sectors, as well. Environmental regulations often create increased demand for pollution control 

equipment and services needed for compliance. This increased demand may increase revenue 

and employment in the environmental protection industry. At the same time, the regulated 

industry is purchasing the equipment, and these costs may affect labor demand at regulated 

firms. Therefore, it is important to consider the net effect of compliance actions on employment 

across multiple sectors or industries.

On the one hand, if the U.S. economy is at full employment, even a large-scale

environmental regulation is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on aggregate net employment.52

Instead, labor would primarily be reallocated from one productive use to another (e.g., from 

producing electricity or steel to producing pollution abatement equipment). Theory supports the 

argument that, in the case of full employment, the net national employment effects from 

environmental regulation are likely to be small and transitory (e.g., as workers move from one 

 51This discussion draws from Berman and Bui (2001), p. 293. 52Full employment is a conceptual target for the economy where everyone who wants to work and is available to do 

so at prevailing wages is actively employed. 
5-9

job to another).

53 On the other hand, if the economy is operating at less than full employment,

economic theory does not clearly indicate the direction or magnitude of the net impact of 

environmental regulation on employment; it could cause either a short-run net increase or shortrun net decrease (Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011). An important fundamental research question 

is how to accommodate unemployment as a structural feature in economic models. This feature 

may be important in evaluating the impact of large-scale regulation on employment (Smith, 

2012). 

Affected sectors may experience transitory effects as workers change jobs. Some workers 

may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require time to search 

for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could bid up wages to attract workers. It 

is important to recognize that these adjustment costs can entail local labor disruptions, and 

although the net change in the national workforce is expected to be small, localized reductions in 

employment can still have negative impacts on individuals and communities just as localized 

increases can have positive impacts.

Although the current discussion focuses on labor demand effects, environmental 

regulation may also affect labor supply. In particular, pollution and other environmental risks 

may affect labor productivity54 or employees’ ability to work. Although there is an 

accompanying, and parallel, theoretical approach to examining impacts on labor supply, similar 

to labor demand, it is even more difficult and complex to study labor supply empirically. There is 

a small, nascent empirical literature using more detailed labor and environmental data and quasiexperimental techniques that is starting to find traction on this question. These are described in 

Section 5.2.6.

To summarize the discussion in this section, economic theory provides a framework for 

analyzing the impacts of environmental regulation on employment. The net employment effect 

incorporates expected employment changes (both positive and negative) in the regulated sector, 

the environmental protection sector, and other relevant sectors. Using economic theory, labor 

demand impacts for regulated firms, and also for the regulated industry, can be decomposed into 

output and substitution effects. With these potentially competing forces, under standard 

neoclassical theory estimation of net employment effects is possible with empirical study 

specific to the regulated firms and firms in the environmental protection sector and other relevant 

 53Arrow et al. (1996); see discussion on bottom of p. 8. In practice, distributional impacts on individual workers can 

be important, as discussed in later paragraphs of this section. 54For example, Graff Zivin and Neidell (2012).
5-10

sectors when data and methods of sufficient detail and quality are available. Finally, economic 

theory suggests that labor supply effects are also possible. In the next section, we discuss the 

available empirical literature.

5.2.2 Current State of Knowledge Based on the Peer-Reviewed Literature

In the labor economics literature, an extensive body of peer-reviewed empirical work

analyzes various aspects of labor demand, relying on the above theoretical framework.55 This 

work focuses primarily on the effects of employment policies, for example, labor taxes and 

minimum wage.56 In contrast, the peer-reviewed empirical literature specifically estimating 

employment effects of environmental regulations is very limited. In this section, we present an 

overview of the latter. As discussed in the preceding section on theory, determining the direction 

of employment effects in regulated industries is challenging because of the complexity of the 

output and substitution effects. Complying with a new or more stringent regulation may require 

additional inputs, including labor, and may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used 

by regulated firms (and firms in other relevant industries) in their production processes. 

Several empirical studies, including Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern et al.

(2002), suggest that net employment impacts may be zero or slightly positive but small even in 

the regulated sector. Other research suggests that more highly regulated counties may generate 

fewer jobs than less regulated ones (Greenstone, 2002; Walker, 2011). However, because these 

latter studies compare more regulated to less regulated counties, they overstate the net national 

impact of regulation to the extent that regulation causes plants to locate in one area of the 

country rather than another. List et al. (2003) found some evidence that this type of geographic 

relocation may be occurring. Overall, the peer-reviewed literature does not contain evidence that 

environmental regulation has a large impact on net employment (either negative or positive) in 

the long run across the whole economy. 

Environmental regulations seem likely to affect the environmental protection sector 

earlier than the regulated industry. Rules are usually announced well in advance of their effective 

dates and then typically provide a period of time for firms to invest in technologies and process 

changes to meet the new requirements. When a regulation is promulgated, the initial response of 

firms is often to order pollution control equipment and services to enable compliance when the 

regulation becomes effective. This can produce a short-term increase in labor demand for 

specialized workers within the environmental protection sector, particularly workers involved in 

 55Again, see Hamermesh (1993) for a detailed treatment. 56See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), Chapter 4: “Employment Effects: Empirical Estimates” for a concise overview.
5-11

the design, construction, testing, installation, and operation of the new pollution control 

equipment required by the regulation (see Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011; Bezdek, Wendling, 

and Diperna, 2008). Estimates of short-term increases in demand for specialized labor within the 

environmental protection sector have been prepared for several EPA regulations in the past, 

including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) (U.S. EPA, 2011b).

5.2.3 Regulated Sector

Determining the direction of net employment effects of regulation on industry is 

challenging. Two papers that present a formal theoretic model of the underlying profitmaximizing/cost-minimizing problem of the firm are Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, 

Pizer, and Shih (2002) mentioned above.

Berman and Bui (2001) developed an innovative approach to estimate the effect on 

employment of environmental regulations in California. Their model empirically examines how 

an increase in local air quality regulation affects manufacturing employment in the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which incorporates Los Angeles and its suburbs. 

During the time frame of their study, 1979 to 1992, the SCAQMD enacted some of the country’s 

most stringent air quality regulations. Using SCAQMD’s local air quality regulations, Berman 

and Bui identified the effect of environmental regulations on net employment in the regulated 

industries.57 In particular, they compared changes in employment in affected plants to those in 

other plants in the same 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) industries but in regions 

not subject to the local regulations.58 The authors found that “while regulations do impose large 

costs, they have a limited effect on employment” (Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269). Their 

conclusion is that local air quality regulation “probably increased labor demand slightly” but that 

“the employment effects of both compliance and increased stringency are fairly precisely 

estimated zeros, even when exit and dissuaded entry effects are included” (Berman and Bui, 

2001, p. 269).59 In their view, the limited effects likely arose because 1) the regulations applied 

disproportionately to capital-intensive plants with relatively little employment, 2) the plants sold 

to local markets where competitors were subject to the same regulations (so that sales were 

relatively unaffected), and 3) abatement inputs served as complements to employment.

 57Note, like Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002), this study does not estimate the number of jobs created in the 

environmental protection sector. 58Berman and Bui include over 40 4-digit SIC industries in their sample. 59Including the employment effect of exiting plants and plants dissuaded from opening will increase the estimated 

impact of regulation on employment. This employment effect is not included in Morgenstern et al. (2002) .
5-12

Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) developed a similar structural approach to Berman 

and Bui’s, but their empirical application used pollution abatement expenditures from 1979 to 

1991 at the plant level, including air, water, and solid waste, to estimate net employment effects 

in four highly regulated sectors (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining). Thus, in 

contrast to Berman and Bui (2001), this study identified employment effects by examining 

differences in abatement expenditures rather than geographical differences in stringency. They 

conclude that increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in net 

employment in those sectors.

5.2.4 Environmental Protection Sector

The long-term effects of a regulation on the environmental protection sector, which 

provides goods and services that help protect the environment to the regulated sector, are 

difficult to assess. Employment in the industry supplying pollution control equipment or services

is likely to increase with the increased demand from the regulated industry for increased 

pollution control.60

A report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (2013) shows that domestic 

environmental services revenues grew by 41% between 2000 and 2010. According to U.S. 

Department of Commerce (2010) data, by 2008, there were 119,000 environmental technology 

(ET) firms generating approximately $300 billion in revenues domestically, producing $43.8 

billion in exports, and supporting nearly 1.7 million jobs in the United States. Air pollution 

control accounted for 18% of the domestic ET market and 16% of exports. Small and mediumsize companies represent 99% of private ET firms, producing 20% of total revenue (OEEI, 

2010).

5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts

As described above, the small empirical literature on employment effects of 

environmental regulations focuses primarily on labor demand impacts. However, there is a 

nascent literature focusing on regulation-induced effects on labor supply, though this literature 

remains very limited because of empirical challenges. This new research uses innovative 

methods and new data and indicates that there may be observable impacts of environmental 

regulation on labor supply, even at pollution levels below mandated regulatory thresholds. Many 

researchers have found that work-loss days and sick days, as well as mortality, are reduced when 

air pollution is reduced (EPA, 2011a). EPA’s study of the benefits and costs of implementing the 

 60See Bezdek, Wendling, and Diperna (2008) , for example, and U.S. Department of Commerce (2010). 
5-13

clean air regulations used these studies to predict how increased labor availability would increase 

the labor supply and improve productivity and the economy (EPA, 2011a).Another literature 

estimates how worker productivity improves at the work site when pollution is reduced. Graff 

Zivin and Neidell (2013) reviewed this literature, focusing on how health and human capital may 

be affected by environmental quality, particularly air pollution. In previous research, Graff Zivin 

and Neidell (2012) used detailed worker-level productivity data from 2009 and 2010, paired with 

local ozone air quality monitoring data for one large California farm growing multiple crops,

with a piece-rate payment structure. Their quasi-experimental structure identified an effect of 

daily variation in monitored ozone levels on productivity. They found “that ozone levels well 

below federal air quality standards have a significant impact on productivity: a 10 parts per 

billion (ppb) decrease in ozone concentrations increases worker productivity by 5.5 percent.”

(Graff Zivin and Neidell, 2012, p. 3654). Such studies are a compelling start to exploring this 

new area of research, considering the benefits of improved air quality on productivity, alongside 

the existing literature exploring the labor demand effects of environmental regulations.

5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects

The preceding sections have outlined the challenges associated with estimating net 

employment effects in the regulated sector and in the environmental protection sector and labor 

supply impacts. These challenges make it very difficult to accurately produce net employment 

estimates for the whole economy that would appropriately capture the way in which costs, 

compliance spending, and environmental benefits propagate through the macro-economy. 

Quantitative estimates are further complicated by the fact that macroeconomic models often have 

very little sectoral detail and usually assume that the economy is at full employment. EPA is 

currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert panel on modeling 

economy-wide impacts, including employment effects. 

5.2.7 Information Specific to this Regulation 

In 2011, the ASM reported that 218 establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in 

NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a total annual payroll of about $300 million (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2013a, b). Approximately 12 million production labor hours were used to 

produce BSCP in 2011.

For this analysis, EPA quantified a subset of possible types of employment effects 

associated with the regulation:

■ additional labor requirements (full-time equivalents [FTEs]) associated with meeting 

the new regulation 
5-14

■ employment effect of facilities that may exit the BSCP industry 

As shown in Table 5-2, EPA estimates that the regulation will require an additional 

133,000 labor hours per year to operate control devices, or approximately a 1.1% increase. This 

is equivalent to about 64 additional FTEs. The total estimated cost of these additional labor 

requirements is $3.12 million per year.

Table 5-2. Estimated Additional Labor Requirements 

Total Annual Labor Cost ($ million)

Required to Operate Control Devices

Total Annual Labor Hours Required 

to Operate Control Devices

Proposed Standards $3.12 133,000

Alternate Standards $5.00 214,000

In Section 5.3, EPA estimates that the regulation may lead to one to two affected 

facilities exiting the BSCP industry. According the U.S. Census Bureau (2013b), the average 

number of employees per facility in 2011 was 37 (8,000/218 = 37). As a result, we estimate 37 to 

74 employees may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require 

time to search for new jobs.

5.2.8 Conclusion 

Although EPA has quantified two types of employment effects in this RIA, deriving 

estimates of how this regulation will affect net employment is a difficult task, requiring 

consideration of labor demand in both the regulated and environmental protection sectors. 

Economic theory predicts that the total effect of an environmental regulation on labor demand in

regulated sectors is not necessarily positive or negative. Peer-reviewed econometric studies that 

use a structural approach, applicable to overall net effects in the regulated sectors, converge on 

the finding that such effects, whether positive or negative, have been small and have not affected 

employment in the national economy in a significant way. Effects on labor demand in the 

environmental protection sector seem likely to be positive. Finally, new evidence suggests that 

environmental regulation may improve labor supply and productivity. 

5.3 Impacts on Small Entities

As mentioned above, EPA was particularly concerned about the proposed rule’s potential 

impacts to small entities, because 36 of 44 firms owning BSCP facilities have fewer than 750 

employees and thus meet the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) criterion for a small 

business in this industry. EPA thus conducted a screening analysis of the potential impacts by 

Formatted Table
5-15

computing the ratio of control costs to firm sales revenues (i.e., a sales test). Based on the results 

of the screening analysis, EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the rule will not have a 

Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). As a result, EPA 

initiated a Small Business Advisory Review panel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA). 

5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis

As discussed in Section 2, EPA has identified 44 ultimate parent companies with 

facilities that will need new or modified control devices to meet new emission standards. 

Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing 

(NAICS 327120) industry and the SBA (2013) defines a small business as having fewer than 750

employees. There are 36 parent companies that are small businesses.

EPA assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of ultimate 

parent companies by comparing pollution control costs to total sales (i.e., a “sales” test or costto-sales ratios [CSR]). To do this, we divided an ultimate parent company’s (i) total annualized 

compliance costs by its reported revenue:

Sales Testi = TTTTT AAAA AAAA C CC C C C i

TTTTT R R i

(5.1)

As shown in Table 5-3, 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies had sales data available 

that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. The table shows that 73% of all businesses and 75% of 

small businesses affected by the proposed standards have CSRs of under 1%. 

EPA estimated the range of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close 

rather than comply with the regulation. The lower and upper bounds of the range were 

determined as follows:

■ Lower bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.

■ Upper bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%, 50% of ultimate 

parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25% of ultimate parent 

companies with CSRs between 3% and 5%.

Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing 

facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards, two to six brick 

manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.
5-16

Table 5-3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates

Capital Cost 

(Million $)

Annual Cost 

(Million $)

Ultimate Parent Companies with Cost-to-Sales Ratios (CSRs)a

Estimatedb

Closures

Estimated 

Number of 

Facilities 

Closed

Less than 

1% 1% to 3% 3% to 5% 5% to 10%

Greater than 

10%

All Businesses (n=40) 

Proposed 

Standards

$58 $21 73% 15% 5% 5% 3% 3–6% 1–2

Alternate 

Standards

$94 $31 45% 25% 15% 10% 5% 5–14% 2–6

Small Businesses (n=32)

Proposed 

Standards

$11 $5 75% 16% 3% 3% 3% 3–5% 1–2

Alternate 

Standards

$34 $11 47% 22% 16% 9% 6% 6–15% 2–5

a The screening assessment was conducted for 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies with annual sales data available. For small businesses, 32 of the 36 small 

entities had annual sales data available.

b EPA estimated a lower and upper bound as follows: Lower bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.; Upper bound: All ultimate parent 

companies with CSR > 10%, 50% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 

3% and 5%.

Formatted Table
5-17

As shown in Table 5-3, 32 of the 36 small ultimate parent companies had sales data 

available that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated 

that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the 

alternate standards, two to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of 

closure. All of the facilities at risk of closure were one facility companies.

EPA has been informed that small and large firms may have difficulty obtaining longerterm financing needed to buy the control equipment and make process changes needed to comply 

with the proposed standards. Firms may not have cash on hand or the ability to convert assets 

into cash in order to make these purchases; as a result, firms would have to consider other longterm financing options. Affected firms are less likely to be publicly traded and thus would be 

more likely to consider debt versus equity options. The additional liabilities can put firms at 

additional risk of closure if market conditions do not improve during the period when the rule is 

adopted. In addition, if creditors are concerned about existing or future market conditions in the 

brick industry, they may be less willing to enter a loan contract or may require higher rates of 

interest than the 7 percent interest rate used to annualize the capital costs associated with the 

rule. 

EPA estimates of the range of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close 

rather than comply with the regulation may be an underestimate because of the difficulty in 

obtaining financing at a 7 percent interest rate. The estimates might be an overestimate if the 

industry has become more robust by 2018 when the control must be in place. The closure 

estimate did not include any increase in net effects on revenue due to price increases associated 

withor reductions in sales attributable to the regulation. 

5.3.2 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

An IRFA illustrates how EPA considers the proposed rule’s small entity effects before a 

rule is finalized and provides information about how the objectives of the rule were achieved 

while minimizing significant economic impacts on small entities. We provide a summary of 

IRFA elements; the preamble for this rule provides additional details.

5.3.2.1 Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency is Being Considered

On May 16, 2003, under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay 

products manufacturing and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for clay 

ceramics manufacturing. On March 13, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
5-18

Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded both sets of standards. EPA is responding to the Court’s

vacatur and remand.

5.3.2.2 Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis of Proposed Rule

The information for this IRFA elements is contained in the preamble to the proposed rule 

[Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291].

5.3.2.3 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities

Small entities that EPA anticipates being affected by the standards would include the 

types of manufacturers listed in Section 2 of this RIA. EPA estimates that 44 U.S. companies 

will be affected. EPA believes that approximately 36 of these companies meet the SBA smallentity definition of having fewer than 750 employees.

5.3.2.4 Description of the Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other Compliance 

requirements of the Proposed Rule

A discussion of the compliance requirements and costs is presented in Section 3 of this 

RIA.

5.3.2.5 Identification, to the extent practicable, of All Relevant Federal Rules Which May 

Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict with the Proposed Rule

EPA has determined there are no related federal rules for this source category.

5.3.2.6 Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

The information for this IRFA element is contained in Section 3 of this RIA and in the 

preamble to the proposed rule [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291].

EPA conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendation of representatives of the small 

entities that potentially would be subject to the requirements of the BSCP proposed rule. The 

results of this process are discussed in Report on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule “National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Maximum Achievable Control Technology for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing” completed on December 6, 2013. 

The SBAR made several recommendations to enhance flexibility for small businesses 

complying with the proposed rule. The EPA adopted the panel recommendations to the extent 

feasible, as described below:

■ The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices for dioxin and take 

comment on the feasibility of work practice standards for mercury and other metals. 
5-19

The discussion of work practices for mercury and other metals should clearly identify 

any areas where the agency believes that the data do not support work practices to 

allow for meaningful comments and also discuss work practice alternatives with 

sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as an alternative in the final 

rule.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practices for dioxin/furan. Although the 

EPA is proposing emission limits for mercury and for non-mercury metals, the EPA 

is specifically requesting comment in the proposal on the feasibility of work practice 

standards for non-mercury metals and for mercury, including data to support 

development of work practice standards for non-mercury metals and mercury in lieu 

of numerical emission limits.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA co-propose both a health-based limit and 

MACT limits for acid gases unless the EPA determines it lacks sufficient information 

to propose a numerical health-based limit.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing a health-based emission limit for acid gases in 

lieu of MACT limits.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate subcategories for kilns based 

on size if it reduces the financial impact and that the EPA should take comment and 

solicit data on subcategorization based on raw materials, fuels, and other factors.

Proposed rule: The EPA evaluated the data to determine if subcategories of sources 

were supported, including subcategories by kiln size. As a result, the EPA is 

proposing emission limits for mercury in two subcategories based on kiln size (large, 

small). However, although the EPA has the discretion to subcategorize by kiln size, 

the EPA determined it was not necessary to exercise this discretion for all pollutants, 

including total non-mercury HAP metals. Instead, the EPA is proposing a choice of 

emission limits for PM or total non-mercury metals for all tunnel kilns. The ability to 

comply with the equivalent lb/hr total non-mercury HAP metals limit provides 

additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content 

in the PM emissions.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA specifically request information, at proposal, 

on how the presence of sawdust dryers would affect emissions and control costs.

Proposed rule: The proposed rule requests comment on whether the EPA should 

create a subcategory for kilns fired with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

■ The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice standards for startup and 

shutdown.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown for tunnel kilns and is requesting comment on providing those work 

practice standards.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on 12 percent of the entire 

source category if the EPA can establish that the data available to the agency 

represent the best-performing sources consistent with section 112 of the CAA and 

relevant case law.
5-20

Proposed rule: The test data for PM (the surrogate for total non-mercury metals) 

showed that kilns controlled with a fabric filter-based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) 

are the better performers and at least 12 percent of the kilns in the industry are 

controlled with a fabric filter-based APCD. Therefore, the MACT limit is based on 

the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the best-performing sources with a 

fabric filter-based APCD). However, the EPA was unable to establish that the data 

available to the agency represented the best-performing sources for mercury control. 

Therefore, the MACT limit for mercury is based upon the top 12 percent of sources 

for which we had test data.

5.4 References 

Arrow, K.J. , M.L. Cropper, G.C. Eads, R.W. Hahn, L.B. Lave, R.G. Noll, P.R. Portney, M. 

Russell, R. Schmalensee, V.K. Smith, and R.N. Stavins. 1996. “Benefit-Cost Analysis in 

Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation - A Statement of Principles.” American 

Enterprise Institute, The Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future. AEI Press. 

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Benefit Cost Analysis in 

Environmental.AEI.1996.pdf. 

Berman, E., and L.T.M. Bui. 2001. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence 

from the South Coast Air Basin.” Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295. 

Bezdek, R.H., R.M. Wendling, and P. Diperna. 2008. “Environmental Protection, the Economy, 

and Jobs: National and Regional Analyses.” Journal of Environmental Management 

86(1): 63-79. 

Brown, R.S., and L.R. Christensen. 1981. “Estimating the Elasticities of Substitution in a Model 

of Partial Static equilibrium: An Application to U.S. Agriculture 1947 to 1974.” In

Berndt, E.R., Field, B.C. (Eds.), Modeling and Measuring Natural Resource Substitution.

Ehrenberg, R.G., and R.S. Smith. 2000. “Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy.”

Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Executive Order 13563. January 21, 2011. “Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review. Section 1. General Principles of Regulation.”

Federal Register 76(14): 3821-3823. 

Graff Zivin, J., and M. Neidell. 2012. “The Impact of Pollution on Worker Productivity.”

American Economic Review 102(7): 3652-73.

Graff Zivin, J., and M. Neidell. 2013. “Environment, Health, and Human Capital.” Journal of 

Economic Literature 1(3): 689-730.

Greenstone, M. 2002. “The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: 

Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of 

Manufactures.” Journal of Political Economy 110(6): 1175-1219.

Hamermesh, D.S. 1993. “Labor Demand.” Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 
5-21

Internal Revenue Service. SOI Tax Stats - Corporation Tax Statistics. Last updated April 2014. 

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Corporation-Tax-Statistics.

Layard, P.R.G., and A.A. Walters. 1978. “Microeconomic Theory.” McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

List, J.A., D.L. Millimet, P.G. Fredriksson, and W.W. McHone. 2003. “Effects of Environmental 

Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births: Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching 

Estimator.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 944-952.

Morgenstern, R.D., W.A. Pizer, and J-S. Shih. 2002. “Jobs Versus the Environment: An 

Industry-Level Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 

43(3): 412-436. 

Schmalansee, R., and R. Stavins. 2011. “A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis for the 

Transport Rule.” White Paper. Boston, MA: Exelon Corp. 

Smith, K. 2012. “Reflections – In Search of Crosswalks between Macroeconomics and 

Environmental Economics.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(2): 298-

317.

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. April 2010. “Environmental 

Industries Fact Sheet, using 2008 data from Environmental Business International, Inc.”

http://web.ita.doc.gov/ete/eteinfo.nsf/068f3801d047f26e85256883006ffa54/4878b7e2fc0

8ac6d85256883006c452c?OpenDocument. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2011a. “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air 

Act from 1990 to 2020 Final Report–Rev. A.” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport_rev_a.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2011b. “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf. 

U.S. International Trade Commission. March 2013. Environmental and Related Services. 

Publication No. 4389, Investigation No. 332-533. 

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4389.pdf.

Walker, R. 2011. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Reallocation.” American Economic 

Review: Papers and Proceedings 101(2).
6-1

SECTION 6

STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS

6.1 Synopsis

This chapter summarizes the Statutory and Executive Order (EO) impact analyses 

relevant for the proposed NESHAP for Bricks and Structural Clay Products. For each EO and 

Statutory requirement, we describe both the requirements and the way in which our analysis 

addresses these requirements.

6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory 

action.” The proposed rule qualifies as a “significant regulatory action” as defined by the 

Executive Order because it may “raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 

the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.”

Thus, EPA has conducted this Regulatory Impact Analysis to examine the costs, benefits, 

and estimated impacts of the proposed rule. EPA’s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities 

will incur total annualized costs of $21 million under the proposed rule, including costs of 

emissions controls, testing, and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for 

facilities that have testing and monitoring. Total annualized costs of the alternate approach are 

estimated to be $31 million. EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry 

profitability for firms owning affected BASCP facilities. EPA estimated that one to two BSCP 

manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the proposed standards. Under the 

alternate approach, EPA estimated that two to six BSCP manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure.

The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the proposed rule, as described 

in Section VII above. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing 

cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this 

rule. Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits 

from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 

450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of 

HAPs each year through the alternate standards, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as 

SO2, this rule would reduce several non-mercury HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each 
6-2

year. The EPA estimate the total monetized co-benefits to be $52 million to $120 million at a 3% 

discount rate and $47 million to $110 million at a 7% discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 

for the proposed standards. 

Based on the EPA’s examination of costs and benefits of the proposed BSCP NESHAP, 

the EPA believes that the benefits of the proposed rule will exceed the costs.

6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the BSCP proposed rule has been submitted 

for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The information collection request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2509.01. The information 

requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators 

subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 

specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the 

EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B.

In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions, the proposed rule includes paperwork requirements associated with initial 

and 5-year repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of performance test 

results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance and inspection of 

process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of 

malfunction.

There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP. An estimated 25 of 

these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than 

comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 67 facilities are expected to be subject to the 

BSCP proposed rule. For these 67 facilities, the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden 

associated with the BSCP standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to be 15,063 labor hours per year, at a cost of $796,255/yr. No capital 

costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred 

during this period. The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $983/yr. The 

total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
6-3

the standards) is estimated to be 103 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $5,329 per year. (All 

costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Because BSCP facilities are not required to come into full compliance with the standards 

until 3 years after promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e.g., performance tests, 

inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance report, records of compliance data and 

malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation.

For the BSCP proposed rule, we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting 

burden of 31,805 labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also 

estimate annualized capital costs of $262,119/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of 

$350,075/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $612,194/yr. The average annual 

burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,953 hours per year, 

at a total labor cost of $207,946 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.)

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA’s) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the 

proposed BSCP NESHAP are small businesses that own BSCP manufacturing facilities. 

Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing 

(NAICS 327120) industry, and the SBA (2013) defines a small business in this industry as a firm 

with fewer than 750 employees. Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 
6-4

parent companies that are small businesses; of these, 32 have sales data. The EPA first conducted 

a screening assessment by computing the ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales 

(cost-to-sales ratio or CSR) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. 

Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that one to two small brick manufacturing 

facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards, two to five small brick 

manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the BSCP proposed rule on small entities along 

with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is described in Section 5, 

above, and is summarized below.

The IRFA describes the reason why the proposed rule is being considered and describes 

the objectives and legal basis of the proposed rule. The IRFA describes EPA’s examination of 

small entity effects prior to proposing a regulatory option and provides information about steps 

taken to minimize significant impacts on small entities while achieving the objectives of the rule. 

As described above, EPA is developing these standards in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit’s vacatur and remand of a BSCP NESHAP promulgated in 

2003. The objectives of this proposed rule are stated in the Preamble to the Proposed Rule. As 

described in Sections 2 and 5, EPA’s examination of data concerning the 44 owner companies 

owning affected BSCP facilities revealed that 36 of them meet the SBA small-entity definition of 

having fewer than 750 employees. 

The EPA summarized the regulatory requirements and cost sof the propose drule in 

Section 3 of this RIA, including the proposed standards and alternate standards. EPA’s analysis 

has determined that there are no related federal rules for this source category. Section 5 of this 

RIA describes the RFA/SBREFA analysis, the results of which are summarized above. 

As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted 

outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, to obtain 

advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be 

subject to the BSCP proposed rule’s requirements. Seventeen SERs associated with brick 

manufacturing participated. On June 26, 2013, the SBAR Panel held an outreach 

meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In addition to the materials that the SERs received for the 

pre-Panel outreach, the SERs were provided with background information to help them prepare 

for the teleconference and prepare their comments on the proposed rulemaking. Consistent with 

the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity 
6-5

comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in 

the docket for the BSCP proposed rule. (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291) The SBAR 

Panel made several recommendations to enhance flexibility for small businesses complying with 

the proposed rule. In response to each recommendation, EPA has developed the rule to accept 

the recommendation to the extent possible. Specific procedures incorporated into the proposed 

rule in response to the panel’s recommendations are presented in Section 5.

6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any 1 year. EPA estimates that the nationwide total annual cost of the proposed rule, including 

control, emissions testing, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs, will be $21 

million. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on any state, local, or tribal 

governments. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. It contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose 

obligations on them.

6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in EO 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned and operated by 

state governments, and, nothing in the proposed rule will supersede state regulations. Thus, EO

13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with EPA’s 

policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, 

6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or no the distribution of power 

and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in EO 13175.

The action imposes requirements on owners and operators of BSCP manufacturing facilities and 

not tribal governments.
6-6

6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 

and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 

the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 

because it is based solely on technology performance. Nevertheless, this action will result in 

reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans, and Hg and other metals, which will 

provide some increased protection of health for people of all ages including children.

6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule will not adversely directly affect productivity, 

competition, or prices in the energy sector. 

6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 

(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS.

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use the 

following four VCS as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this 

rule. ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981, Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” is acceptable as 

an alternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental 

procedures. ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test Method for Measurement of 

Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method,” 

is acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.
6-7

ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), “Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario 

Hydro Method),” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only).

ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), “Standard Test Method for Determination of 

Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 

Spectroscopy,” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following conditions: (1) 

the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-03, Sections A1 

through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), 

the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the 

test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and 

less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target 

compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for 

that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). 

The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements 

must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following 

equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R.

6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous

populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any minority, low-income, or indigenous population. This proposed 

rule establishes national standards that will result in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, CL2, 

dioxins/furans, and Hg and other metals to which all affected populations are exposed. Thus, the 

proposed rule is projected to have positive, not adverse, impacts on human health and the 

environment.
7-1

SECTION 7

COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

7.1 Introduction

The EPA compared the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity 

and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 (Section 4) with the estimated 

annualized social costs (Section 5) and found that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the 

costs. The net benefits are likely higher since EPA was not able to monetize other environmental 

benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year and ecosystem effects 

and visibility impairment associated with PM emissions.

7.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards

Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the proposed 

standards to be $52 million to $120 million (Table 7-1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate 

the total monetized benefits to be $47 million to $110 million. The annualized costs are $21 

million at a 7% interest rate. The net benefits are $31 million to $99 million at a 3% discount rate 

for the benefits and $26 million to $89 billion at a 7% discount rate.

7.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards

Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the proposed

standards to be $78 million to $180 million (Table 7-1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate 

the total monetized benefits to be $70 million to $160 million. The annualized costs are $31 

million at a 7% interest rate. The net benefits are $47 million to $149 million at a 3% discount 

rate for the benefits and $39 million to $129 billion at a 7% discount rate. 
7-2

Table 7-1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits (million 

2011$)

Total (3% Discount Rate) Total (7% Discount Rate)

Proposed Standards

Total Monetized Benefits $52 to $120 $47 to $110

Total Social Costsa $21

Net Benefits $31 to $99 $26 to $89

Alternate Standards

Total Monetized Benefits $78 to $180 $70 to $160

Total Social Costsa $31

Net Benefits $47 to $149 $39 to $129

a The methodology uses the estimate social costs from the baseline year of economic model. As a result, the same 

value of social costs is used for both discount rates.

Formatted Table
A-1

APPENDIX A

ECONOMIC MODEL

A.1 Baseline Data for Economic Model

Table A-1. Affected Production Statistics by Census Region 

Census Region 1,000 S.B.E Shipped in 2010

Estimated Affected Production 

Share within Regiona

East North Central 285,508 81%

East South Central 388,685 100%

Mid-Atlantic 213,583 69%

Mountain 114,154 50%

New England 37,034 0%

Pacific 74,563 85%

South Atlantic 1,307,601 92%

West North Central 183,247 100%

West South Central 891,232 100%

United States 3,495,657 90%

a To approximate the affected shares, EPA estimated affected production from kiln capacity and operating hours of 

major sources.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations.

Table A-2. Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and Facing: 2010

Census Region

$ per 1,000 S.B.E.

Expressed in 2010 dollars

$ per 1,000 S.B.E.

Expressed in 2011 dollars

New England $379 $387

Middle Atlantic $324 $331

East North Central $297 $302

West North Central $272 $277

South Atlantic $227 $232

East South Central $183 $186

West South Central $225 $229

Mountain $355 $362

Pacific $541 $551

United States $248 $253

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. Prices adjusted using the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product 

(GDP). 

Formatted Table

Formatted Table
A-2

A.2 Model Equations

Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high relative to value. For this reason, 

bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of transportation 

across long distances. We found that international trade represented only a small fraction of 

economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of 

nonmetallic mineral products were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 2010).61 Approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are shipped in NAICS is 

less than 50 miles. A comparison of Census region average prices for bricks shows substantial 

differences between regions in the average price of brick products shipped. To the extent these 

price differences persist over time, these differences may be consistent with regional markets for 

brick. As a result, we use a perfectly competitive partial equilibrium model with nine regional 

brick markets (defined by census region). 

The market demand (D) in region (r) with regulation is:

QDD

′ = QDD × �1 + �

P′

− 1� × η� (A.1)

The affected market supply (SA) in region (r) with regulation is:

QS

′ = QS × �1 + �

�P′− �

− 1� × ε� (A.2)

The unaffected market supply (SU) in region (r) with regulation is:

QSS

′ = QSS × �1 + �

P′

− 1� × ε� (A.3)

At the new with-regulation market-clearing price, quantities in A.1, A.2, and A.3 satisfy 

the following market equilibrium condition for each region (r):

QDD

′ = QS

′ + QSS′ (A.3)

As reported in Section 2, a single parent company accounts for a majority of estimated 

census region production. As a result, the price-taking model of firm decisions may not describe 

business decisions as well as other economic models of pricing behavior (i.e., oligopoly). If 

 61The data include other products such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay 

products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.
A-3

market power exists, the use of a perfectly competitive model may understate the social costs of 

the proposed rule.

A.3 Model Parameters

A.3.1 Demand 

All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer brick and structural clay products 

when the price of the product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price 

response.62 Several factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If consumers 

can easily switch from one product to another because there are many close substitutes, demand 

tends to be more elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market definitions (king versus 

modular brick) and over longer time horizons for the consumption decision (months versus 

years).

Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities for brick and 

structural clay products. However, economy-wide simulation models have suggested the 

nonmetallic mineral industry demand elasticity is approximately −0.8. As are result, a 1% change 

in price results in a 0.8% decline in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008). 

Because the market definition for the product is broad, the price response for brick and structural 

clay products is likely more elastic than this value.

A.3.2 Supply 

All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the 

price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply measures how much the quantity of bricks 

supplied responds to changes in the brick price.63 If manufacturers have a significant amount of 

flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks 

is elastic. In contrast, if the quantity of brick produced and supplied only changes by small 

amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.

A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over 

which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, it is more difficult for the firm to 

adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors 

of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford (2002) developed an 

equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed 

 62The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in 

price. 63The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price.
A-4

factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two 

production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period64 and the other input that 

varies with production. 

Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × fixed factor value share

1− fixed factor value share

(A.4)

To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 50% to

approximately match the nonlabor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases 

where we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity 

is 1 (a Cobb-Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor 

prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shares. If we assume the elasticity of 

substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is

Supply Elasticity = 1 × 0.5

1 − 0.5 = 1 (A.5)

Using these values for the fixed factor’s value share and elasticity of substitution, the 

supply elasticity is approximately one. This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick 

manufacturers would plan to sell 1% more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity 

utilization rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value may underestimate how 

responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual 

supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. 

A.4 Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer 

Surplus 

In partial equilibrium analysis, the social costs are estimated by measuring the changes in 

consumer and producer surplus. These values can be approximated using the market supply and 

demand model (Figure A-1). 

 64The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include 

materials or labor.
A-5

Figure A-1. Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and 

Producer Surplus

Change in consumer surplus = – [fghd + dhc]

Change in producer surplus = [fghd – aehb] – bdc

Change in total surplus = consumer surplus + producer surplus = – [aehb + dhc + bdc]

The change in consumer surplus is measured as follows:

∆CS = – [∆Q1 × ∆p] + [0.5 × ∆Q × ∆p]. (A.6)

Higher market prices and lower quantities lead to consumer welfare losses.

For affected supply, the change in producer surplus is measured as follows:

∆PS = [Q1 × ∆p] – [Q1 × unit cost increase] – [0.5 × ∆Q × (∆p –unit cost increase)]. (A.7)

Higher unit costs and lower production level reduce producer surplus. The losses are 

offset to some degree because market prices tend to rise. In contrast, for unaffected supply, the 

change in producer surplus is:

∆PS = [Q0 × ∆p] + [0.5 × ∆Q × ∆p]. (A.8)

Higher prices increase producer surplus for unaffected producers in the U.S. and other 

countries. 

Q1 Q0

P1

P0

h

c

a

$

Output

e

d

S1 : With Regulation

S0 : Without Regulation Price

Increase }

Unit Cost Increase g }

f

b
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick 

and Structural Clay Products

NESHAP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

Air Economics Group

(MD-C339-01)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

July 2014

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291
CONTACT INFORMATION

This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this document should be 

addressed to Tom Walton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (email:

walton.tom@epa.gov). 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Personnel from RTI International and Kapur Energy Environmental Economics, LLC

contributed significant data, analysis, and writing to this document under contract number EP-W11-029. 
iii

CONTENTS

Section Page

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................ES-1

Section 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Background for the Proposed Rule...................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action................................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment.................................. 1-2

1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure................. 1-2

1.3 Organization of the Report................................................................................... 1-3

Section 2 Profile of the Affected Industry ............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Overview of Current Conditions.......................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Supply .................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.1 What Types of Products Does the Industry Provide? .............................. 2-2

2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply? ................................................. 2-3

2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices 

and the Quantity Supplied?...................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Demand................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.1 Who Uses Brick? ..................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand? ......................................... 2-5

2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the 

Quantity Demanded? ............................................................................... 2-6

2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry....................................................... 2-6

2.4.1 Market Definition..................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior.............................................................................. 2-7

2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies................................ 2-8

2.5 Market Data and Trends..................................................................................... 2-11

2.5.1 Market Prices......................................................................................... 2-20
iv

2.6 References.......................................................................................................... 2-21

Section 3 Engineering Cost Analysis..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach ........................................ 3-1

3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device ................................................................. 3-4

3.3 Summary of Results............................................................................................. 3-6

Section 4 Human Health Benefits of Emissions Reductions................................................. 4-1

4.1 PM2.5-Related Human Health Co-Benefits.......................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment....................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Economic Valuation................................................................................. 4-5

4.1.3 Benefit-per-ton Estimates ........................................................................ 4-7

4.1.4 PM2.5 Co-Benefits Results....................................................................... 4-8

4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM2.5 CoBenefits.................................................................................................. 4-11

4.2 Unquantified Benefits........................................................................................ 4-15

4.2.1 HAP Benefits......................................................................................... 4-16

4.2.2 Additional SO2 Health Co-Benefits....................................................... 4-27

4.2.3 Visibility Impairment Co-Benefits ........................................................ 4-28

4.3 References.......................................................................................................... 4-28

Section 5 Economic Impact Analysis.................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Market Analysis................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Market-Level Results............................................................................... 5-2

5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates............................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Employment Impacts of the Proposed Rule......................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Theory...................................................................................................... 5-5

5.2.2 Current State of Knowledge Based on the Peer-Reviewed 

Literature................................................................................................ 5-10

5.2.3 Regulated Sector.................................................................................... 5-11

5.2.4 Environmental Protection Sector........................................................... 5-12

5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts............................................................................ 5-12

5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects............................................. 5-13

5.2.7 Information Specific to this Regulation................................................. 5-13
v

5.2.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 5-14

5.3 Impacts on Small Entities.................................................................................. 5-14

5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis........................................... 5-15

5.3.2 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis................................................... 5-17

5.4 References.......................................................................................................... 5-20

Section 6 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Synopsis............................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review............................. 6-1

6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act.................................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act ................................................................................... 6-3

6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ......................................................... 6-5

6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism .................................................................... 6-5

6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments........................................................................................................ 6-5

6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks............................................................................. 6-6

6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use.................................... 6-6

6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)....................... 6-6

6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations....................................... 6-7

Section 7 Comparison of Benefits and Costs......................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards............................................................... 7-1

7.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards............................................................... 7-1
vi

Appendixes

A Economic Model................................................................................................. A-1
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

2-1 Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327) ........................ 2-2

2-2 Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products......................................... 2-21

4-1 Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits of Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Rule 

in 2018 ........................................................................................................................ 4-10

4-2 Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline....................................................................................................................... 4-15

4-3 Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure 

in the Baseline............................................................................................................. 4-16

4-4 Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor 

sources (2005 NATA)................................................................................................. 4-18

4-5 Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP 

exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)........................................................... 4-19
viii

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

2-1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 (Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing) ............................................................................................................. 2-7

2-2. Market Share Statistics ................................................................................................. 2-8

2-3. Production Statistics by Census Region ....................................................................... 2-9

2-4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities.................................................... 2-10

2-5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa): 1993–

2010............................................................................................................................. 2-12

2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993–

2010............................................................................................................................. 2-14

2-7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993–2010.... 2-17

2-8. Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010......... 2-20

2-9. Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and 

Facing: 2010................................................................................................................ 2-20

3-1. APCD Implementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits............................................ 3-3

3-2. National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 million USD) ........................................ 3-4

3-3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD).............. 3-5

3-4. Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD) .................... 3-7

4-1. Human Health Effects of Ambient PM2.5.................................................................... 4-3

4-2. Summary of Monetized PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2- Related Health CoBenefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$)a .............. 4-9

4-3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 and its Precursor 

SO2- Related Co-Benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018a ..................... 4-9

4-4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at 

Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)a ...................................... 4-10

4-5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration 

Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studiesa ............................................. 4-14

5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP............................................. 5-3

5-2. Estimated Additional Labor Requirements................................................................. 5-14

5-3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates ......... 5-16

7-1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits (million 

2011$) ........................................................................................................................... 7-2
ix
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 Background

The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing that all major sources in 

Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing category meet health-based standards for acid 

gas hazardous air pollutants; maximum achievable control technology standards for mercury, 

non-mercury metal hazardous air pollutants (or particulate matter surrogate), and dioxins/furans 

(Clay Ceramics only); and work practice standards, where applicable. The proposed rules would 

protect air quality and promote public health by reducing emissions of the hazardous air 

pollutants listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act. As part of the regulatory process, EPA is 

required to perform economic analysis and the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) discusses the

benefits and costs of the proposed rule.

ES.2 Results

For the proposed rule, the key results of the RIA follow:

■ Engineering Cost Analysis: EPA estimates the total annualized costs (2011$) for 

two compliance options:

– Proposed Standards: $21 Million

– Alternate Standards: $31 million

■ Benefits Analysis: The EPA monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of 

morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5.

– Proposed Standards: Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized 

benefits of the proposed standards to be $52 million to $120 million. Using a 7% 

discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $47 million to $110 

million.

– Alternate Standards: Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized 

benefits of the alternate standards to be $78 million to $180 million. Using a 7% 

discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $70 million to $160

million.

Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the 

benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing 

exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and 

exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAPs each year for the alternate standards, as well 

as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to 

reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, this rule would reduce several 

non-mercury HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year.
ES-2

■ Market Analysis and Closure Estimates: Market-level impacts include the price 

and production adjustments for bricks. The average national price under the proposed 

standards increases by 1.4%, or $3.29 per 1,000 SBE, while overall domestic 

production falls by 1.1%, or 38 million bricks per year. These values are lower than 

the alternate considered: the average national price increase for the alternate standards 

is 2.0% and brick U.S. brick production falls by about 55 million bricks. Under the 

proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are 

at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards EPA estimated that two to 

six brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

■ Social Cost Analysis: Under the proposed standards, the economic model suggests 

that industries are able to pass on $11.4 million (2011$) of the rule’s costs to U.S. 

households in the form of higher prices. Existing U.S. industries’ surplus falls by $9.1 

million, and the total U.S. economic surplus loss is $20.6 million. Under the alternate

standards, total U.S. economic surplus loss is about $10 million higher ($30.5 

million). 

■ Comparison of Benefits and Costs: The estimated monetized human health benefits 

outweigh the social costs.

– Proposed Standards: The net benefits are $31 million to $99 million at a 3% 

discount rate for the benefits and $26 million to $89 billion at a 7% discount rate.

– Alternate Standards: The net benefits are $47 million to $149 million at a 3% 

discount rate for the benefits and $39 million to $129 billion at a 7% discount 

rate.

■ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: EPA was particularly concerned about the 

proposed rule’s potential impacts to small entities, because 36 of 44 firms owning 

BSCP facilities have fewer than 750 employees and thus meet the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA’s) criterion for a small business in this industry. EPA thus 

conducted a screening analysis of the potential impacts by computing the ratio of 

control costs to firm sales revenues (i.e., a sales test). Based on the results of the 

screening analysis, EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the rule will not 

have a Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). As 

a result, EPA initiated a Small Business Advisory Review panel and undertook an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).

ES.3 Organization of this Report

The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the RIA. Section 1 

provides an introduction, Section 2 presents the industry profile, Section 3 describes engineering 

cost analysis, Section 4 presents the benefits analysis, Section 5 presents market, employment 

impact, social cost, and small business impact analyses, Section 6 address statutory and 

Executive Order requirements, and Section 7 provides a summary of benefits and costs.
1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background for the Proposed Rule

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing proposed National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Bricks and Structural Clay Products 

(BSCP) industry. This rulemaking will establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants (HF, 

HCl and metals) emitted from affected BSCP kilns.

The BSCP industry primarily includes facilities that manufacture brick, clay, pipe, roof 

tile, extruded floor and wall tile, and other extruded dimensional clay products from clay, shale, 

or a combination of the two. The manufacturing of brick and structural clay products involves 

mining, raw material processing (crushing, grinding, and screening), mixing, forming, cutting or 

shaping, drying, and firing. 

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to set emissions standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance 

of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) previously determined that the clay products manufacturing industry may 

reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed in Section 

112(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990. As a consequence, clay products 

manufacturing was included in the initial list of HAP-emitting categories published July 16, 

1992, in the Federal Register and included in the draft schedule for the promulgation of 

emissions standards published in the Federal Register on September 24, 1992. While conducting 

work on the clay products manufacturing source category under Task Order (TO) Nos. 10 and 30 

of EPA Contract No. 68-D6-0012, it was determined that separate national emissions standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) should be developed for brick and structural clay 

products (BSCP) manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing. The NESHAP for BSCP 

manufacturing was promulgated on February 28, 2003 and published in the Federal Register (See 

68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003)). As a result of judicial review, the standards were subsequently 

vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit due to issues 

associated with the methodology used to determine the minimum regulatory “floors” for new and 

existing units. (See Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). To address the 

vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, EPA is proposing new standards for BSCP 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing.. This Regulatory Impact Analysis examines 

the estimated costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed rule.
1-2

1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action

1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

EPA has concluded, after reviewing data on BSCP facilities and considering Sierra Club 

v EPA decision, that emissions standards are needed for several pollutants emitted by BSCP 

facilities. To ensure that public health, safety, and the environment are protected, EPA must 

ensure that emissions of HAP and other pollutants from BSCP are limited. EPA is proposing 

MACT technology-based standards for mercury and non-mercury metal HAP (or PM surrogate), 

and is proposing health-based standards for acid-gas HAP (HF, HCl, and Cl2). The proposed 

rule is expected to reduce direct emissions of PM and emissions of SO2, which is a precursor to 

formation of ambient PM2.5. Therefore, reducing these emissions would also reduce human 

exposure to ambient PM2.5 and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. Thus, the proposed 

rule is expected to reduce human morbidity and premature mortality due to exposure to PM2.5, in 

addition to providing human health and ecosystem benefits due to reduced emissions of HAP, 

and improved visibility due to reduced PM levels.

1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure

In general, regulatory intervention is required only when markets fail to allocate 

resources efficiently. For markets to allocate resources efficiently, both buyers and sellers must 

have access to full information about the transaction; there must be many buyers and sellers so 

that neither buyers nor sellers have power to control prices; and the market must impose all the 

social costs of the transaction on the buyers and sellers in the market. In some situations, 

however, these conditions do not occur, and markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. One 

such market failure occurs in cases where a production or consumption activity imposes an 

external cost on members of society who are neither buyers nor sellers in the market for the good 

or service produced. In cases of external costs, or “externalities,” some costs are imposed on 

members of society who are not part of the market. Because the market is not affected by these 

costs, it fails to account for these costs and thus does not allocate resources efficiently, and 

government must intervene to make the outcome more efficient. Environmental pollution that 

results from a production process is an example of an external cost borne by members of society 

who are neither producers nor consumers of the good whose production is generating the 

pollution.

In the case of bricks and structural clay products, manufacturing processes result in air 

emissions that impose external costs on individuals located near BSCP facilities who are exposed 

to the HAP emitted by the processes. Because these costs are borne by exposed individuals rather 

than by the BSCP manufacturers, they are not considered by manufacturers in their production 
1-3

decisions. As a result, BSCP manufacturers produce more, and emit more pollutants, than they 

would if they bore the costs of the air pollution they generate. Because the market does not 

provide a signal that properly limits the quantity of air pollutants emitted by BSCP 

manufacturers, a market failure exists that requires EPA to promulgate air pollution standards to 

limit their emissions.

1.3 Organization of the Report

The remainder of this economic analysis is organized as follows:

■ Section 2 presents a profile of the bricks and structural clay products industry.

■ Section 3 describes the proposed rule and the estimated costs of complying with it.

■ Section 4 presents a qualitative discussion of the benefits of the proposed rule.

■ Section 5 describes the estimated economic impacts of the proposed rule.

■ Section 6 describes analyses EPA conducted to assess requirements of statutes and 

Executive Orders.

■ Section 7 presents EPA’s provides a summary of benefits and costs.
2-1

SECTION 2

PROFILE OF THE AFFECTED INDUSTRY

Residential and commercial construction activities rely on bricks and structural clay 

materials. Most bricks are used as primary and secondary exterior wall materials, while other 

structural clay products are used in plumbing systems and roofing applications. Because over 

80% of brick sales are associated with residential construction (Brick Industry Association, 

2013a), trends in the industry are influenced by trends in residential construction markets.

2.1 Overview of Current Conditions

To provide a general overview of current conditions in the affected industry, we used the 

U.S. government’s official measures reported in the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), 

County Business Patterns, and Current Industrial Reports. Because the latest year of data (2011) 

differs from historical industry trends, it is unclear whether the industry without the proposed 

rule would be similar to the industry today. As a result, the profile provides information on a 

range of factors that may influence how the brick-related markets may evolve.

Federal statistical agencies classify business establishments in this industry using two 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes:1

■ 327121 Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing

■ 327123 Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing

In 2011, the value of products shipped in the two industries was approximately $1.1 

billion. Nearly all of the value was centered in NAICS 327121. The ASM reported that 218 

establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a 

total annual payroll of about $300 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a,b).

During 2011, approximately 3 to 4 billion Standard Brick Equivalents (S.B.E.)2 were 

produced by the industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Federal Reserve data and industry surveys 

suggest the capacity utilization rate for the brick industry is below 50% (Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System, 2013; Brick Industry Association, 2013b) (see Figure 2-1). The 

current observed conditions are influenced by the recent steep declines in the residential 

 1

In 2012, these industries were classified under NAICS 32710 Clay Building Material and Refractories 

Manufacturing. See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=327120&search=2012. 2

This is a common unit that accounts for various sizes of brick products. It measures 3-5/8′′ x 2-1/4′′” x 7-5/8′′.
2-2

Figure 2-1. Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327)

Source: Federal Reserve Board, 2013

construction market. For example, 2011 new privately owned housing starts (608,800) units are 

well below levels observed in 2000 (1.6 million) and 1990 (1.2 million) (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2013c). Since 2010, new residential housing starts have begun to grow again, but levels are still 

much lower than the previous two decades. New privately owned housing starts in July 2013 

were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 852,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013d).

2.2 Supply

To better understand the markets for affected products, we considered the group of sellers 

that provide goods to the market and common factors that influence supply (e.g., input prices) 

and quantity of goods supplied (e.g., output prices).

2.2.1 What Types of Products Does the Industry Provide?

The U.S. Current Industrial Report provides descriptions of the types of clay construction 

goods supplied to U.S. and international markets. They include

■ brick (building or common and face);

■ structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed;

■ vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings; and
2-3

■ structural clay tile (except facing).

Bricks are the primary good produced in terms of value and physical quantities and 

include face brick, paving brick, building brick, and thin brick. Face brick accounts for over 90% 

of brick shipments.

2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply?

The manufacturing process for brick and structural clay goods includes raw material 

processing (mining, grinding, screening, and blending) followed by forming, cutting, or shaping; 

drying; firing; cooling; and storage (U.S. EPA, 1997). Census data for NAICS 327121 Brick and 

Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing suggest that 70% of the product’s value is associated with 

value-added activities (i.e., labor and capital earnings). During the last 5 years, labor costs have 

remained flat in the nonmetallic mineral products sector. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

reports that average annual hourly earnings (adjusted for inflation) of all employees was about 

$20 per hour (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013a,b).

The value of intermediate goods used in these processes (i.e., raw materials like clay and 

shale) make up the remaining 30% of the industry’s total product value (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2013a). Intermediate production costs can be influenced by changes in raw clay material prices, 

but the prices of these materials have not fluctuated recently. Since 2008, common clay prices 

(primarily used in brick) have remained steady at $12 per ton. The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) notes that brick companies often consider sources of raw materials when considering 

purchasing other companies. For example, the Belden Brick Co. purchase of Lawrenceville 

Brick Inc. included Lawrenceville Brick’s clay reserves (USGS, 2011).

2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices and the Quantity 

Supplied?

All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the 

price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply measures how much the quantity of bricks 

supplied responds to changes in the brick price.3 If manufacturers have a significant amount of 

flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks 

is elastic. In contrast, if the quantity of brick produced and supplied only changes by small 

amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.

 3

The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price.
2-4

A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over 

which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, it is more difficult for the firm to 

adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors 

of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford (2002) developed an 

equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed 

factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two 

production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period4 and the other input that 

varies with production. 

Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × fixed factor value share

1− fixed factor value share .

To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 50% to

approximately match the non-labor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases 

where we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity 

is 1 (a Cobb-Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor 

prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shares. If we assume the elasticity of 

substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is

Supply Elasticity = 1 × 0.5

1 − 0.5 = 1.

Using these values for the fixed factor’s value share and elasticity of substitution, the 

supply elasticity is approximately one. This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick 

manufacturers would plan to sell 1% more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity 

utilization rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value may underestimate how 

responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual 

supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. 

2.3 Demand

Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) are primarily used in residential and 

commercial construction applications and are influenced by overall macroeconomic trends and 

conditions in the residential housing industry. Facing bricks are used in overall building 

structures (e.g., exterior walls), while clay pipe; structural clay tile; and drain, sewer, and roof 

tiles are used in elements of the building structure such as plumbing systems, fireplaces, and 

 4

The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include 

materials or labor.
2-5

roofs. Because the vast majority of affected products are brick products and available data for

other structural clay products are more limited, we focus on brick demand characteristics.

2.3.1 Who Uses Brick?

According to the Brick Industry Association, the vast majority of affected brick products 

are sold for residential end uses and nonresidential building uses (Brick Industry Association, 

2013b). The pattern of shipments varies by brick type: approximately half of the industry 

shipments go to dealers or distributors who sell the products to final consumers and the other half 

is sold directly to end users like construction companies (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). 

Over half of the shipments flow to two census regions (South Atlantic and West South Central), 

and Texas is the largest consumer of face brick and paver shipments (Brick Industry Association, 

2013b).

2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand?

BSCP have a variety of characteristics desirable in building materials. According to the 

Brick Industry Association, brick’s desirable attributes include its durability, flexibility, 

resistance to fire, weather, and pests; and little required maintenance. (Brick Industry 

Association, 2013a) A recent National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) survey of buyers 

of new homes found that “To get brick, respondents reported they would add $7,500 in 

additional costs” (NAHB, 2013).

2.3.2.1 Price of Related Goods

In exterior wall applications, vinyl siding, stone, stucco, wood, and fiber cement are 

substitute building materials. Historically, brick has maintained a 25% market share in the 

exterior wall application market (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). A recent NAHB survey 

found that “On a national level, respondents ranked brick highest at 34 percent, vinyl siding at 21 

percent, stone at 16 percent, stucco at 12 percent, wood at 7 percent and fiber cement at 5 

percent” (NAHB, 2013).

2.3.2.2 Income

Homeowners purchasing more expensive homes are more likely to choose brick 

exteriors. A recent NAHB survey found that “Ranked by price point [sale price of the home], 

brick topped other home exteriors in the $150,000–$499,000 range, while vinyl was preferred in 

the $150,000 or less range; brick ranked second to stone in the $500,000+ range with stucco 

following in third place” (NAHB, 2013). This suggests demand for brick exterior is likely 

influenced by income levels.
2-6

2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the Quantity Demanded?

All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer BSCP when the price of the 

product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price response.5 Several 

factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If consumers can easily switch 

from one product to another because there are many close substitutes, demand tends to be more 

elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market definitions (king versus modular brick) 

and over longer time horizons for the consumption decision (months versus years).

Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities of demand for 

BSCP. However, economy-wide simulation models have suggested the nonmetallic mineral 

industry demand elasticity is approximately −0.8, a 1% change in price results in a 0.8% decline 

in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008). Because the market definition for 

the product is broad, the price response for BSCP is likely more elastic than this value.

2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry

2.4.1 Market Definition

Market definition boundaries are commonly defined in two dimensions: product 

substitution and geography. Based on product substitution characteristics and available data, we 

rely on the Census definitions to define three groups of markets in which buyers are more likely 

to view products as substitutes:

■ Brick

– Brick (building or common and face)

■ Other Structural Clay Products

– Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed

– Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings

■ Other Clay Structural, Floor, and Wall Tile

– Structural clay tile (except facing)

Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high, relative to value. For this 

reason, bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of 

transportation across long distances. We found that international trade represented only a small 

fraction of economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of 

 5

The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in 

price.
2-7

nonmetallic mineral products were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 2010).6 As shown in Table 2-1, approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are 

shipped in NAICS 327 is less than 50 miles. A comparison of Census region average prices for 

bricks shows substantial differences between regions in the average price of brick products 

shipped. To the extent these price differences persist over time, these differences may be 

consistent with regional markets for brick.

Table 2-1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 (Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing)

Distance Shipped

2007 Value 

(million $) 

2007 Tons 

(thousands) Share of Total Tons

Total 124,713 1,060,926 ----

Less than 50 miles 53,721 796,412 75.1%

50–99 miles 12,351 82,342 7.8%

100–249 miles 21,760 113,384 10.7%

250–499 miles 15,117 39,645 3.7%

500–749 miles 8,495 16,040 1.5%

750–999 miles 4,872 6,039 0.6%

1,000–1,499 miles 3,790 4,722 0.4%

1,500–2,000 miles 2,364 1,344 0.1%

More than 2,000 miles 2,246 998 0.1%

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Table 15.

2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior

Economists have developed a system for grouping markets that helps describe the pricing 

behavior of firms. At one end of the spectrum, firms have little control over pricing for their 

products. Put another way, firms are price takers, and price is determined by supply and demand 

conditions. This basic model is more likely to hold when the industry has a large number of 

sellers, goods are identical, and barriers for entry and exit (laws, high capital requirements, or 

patents) are low. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a single firm that searches for the 

price-output combination that maximizes its profit. This basic model is more likely to hold when 

there are significant barriers to entry (industries with economies of scale or ownership of a 

patent).

 6

The data include other products such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay 

products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.
2-8

When markets have a small number of firms selling identical products, firms may not 

necessarily be price takers; instead, they may be able to determine their price while considering 

how competitors may respond to their own decisions. To assess the extent to which affected 

markets may be concentrated among a small number of sellers, we compiled and estimated 

national and regional market share statistics using historical kiln survey data. Across the United 

States, a large number of companies (50 companies) own and operate over 200 kilns. The largest 

U.S. market share for a U.S. company is low (about 16%). This is consistent with the latest 5-

year Census statistics describing U.S. concentration at the 6-digit NAICS code level, which 

found that both affected industries are well below levels that government agencies consider 

moderately concentrated (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013e).

As Table 2-2 indicates, looking within regions, the New England region has only two 

operating companies, while the South Atlantic region has 17. In several Census regions, a single 

parent company accounts for a majority of estimated regional production. To the extent that 

brick product markets are defined at the regional level versus national level, the price-taking 

model of firm decisions may not describe business decisions as well as other economic models 

of pricing behavior.

Table 2-2. Market Share Statistics

Census Region Number of Companies

Maximum Company 

Share of Region 

Production

East North Central 12 38%

East South Central 9 49%

Mid-Atlantic 5 66%

Mountain 6 48%

New England 2 NA

Pacific 4 40%

South Atlantic 17 26%

West North Central 9 31%

West South Central 5 52%

Source: U.S. EPA calculations.

2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies

Based on historical kiln inventory survey data, over 13 million tons of BSCP are 

produced by the industry, which includes over 200 major and area source kilns. EPA has 
2-9

identified 44 ultimate parent companies with facilities that will need new or modified control 

devices to meet new emission standards. The companies own 86 facilities and operate 172 kilns

(see Table 2-3). The South Atlantic region accounts for a significant share of existing production 

capacity; 25 facilities and 57 kilns are operated in this region.

Table 2-3. Production Statistics by Census Region 

Census Region

Total S.B.E 

Shipped in 2010

(1000s)

Number of 

Affected Kilns

Number of 

Affected 

Facilities

Estimated Affected 

Production Share 

within Region

East North Central 285,508 29 10 81%

East South Central 388,685 28 14 100%

Mid-Atlantic 213,583 8 5 69%

Mountain 114,154 4 3 50%

New England 37,034 0 0 0%

Pacific 74,563 6 4 85%

South Atlantic 1,307,601 57 25 92%

West North Central 183,247 15 11 100%

West South Central 891,232 25 14 100%

United States 3,495,607 172 86 90%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations.

2.4.3.1 Small Businesses

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) requires federal departments and agencies to evaluate if 

and/or how their regulations affect small business entities. Specifically, the Agency must 

determine if a regulation is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. The business is defined as the owner company, rather than the 

facility; the size of the owner company determines the resources it has available to comply with 

the rule.

Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories 

Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) (2013)

defines a small business as having fewer than 750 employees. There are 36 parent companies 

that are small businesses (see Table 2-4).
2-10

Table 2-4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities

Company ICR NAICS

Affected 

Facilities

Affected 

Kilns

Sales 

(million $) Employment Small

Acme Brick Company 327121 11 19 260.1 2,602 No

American Eagle Brick Co. 327121 1 1 NA NA Yes

Belden Brick Company 327121 2 11 87.5 751 No

Boral Bricks Inc. 327121 11 20 3,922.0 14,740 No

Certainteed Corporation 327123 1 1 1,330.8 Over 10,000 No

Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. 327121 1 4 43.5 175 Yes

Columbus Brick Co. 327121 1 3 4.9 50 Yes

Commercial Brick Corp. 327121 1 3 17.5 175 Yes

Continental Brick Co. 327121 1 2 15.0 75 Yes

Cunningham Brick Company, Inc. 327121 2 2 18.5 134 Yes

Elgin-Butler Brick Co. 327122 1 2 2.7 30 Yes

Endicott Clay Products Co. 327122 1 3 23.4 180 Yes

General Finance, Inc. 327121 1 1 212.2 229 Yes

General Shale Brick, Inc. 327121 6 16 285.4 1,900 No

Glen Gery 327121 6 10 83.3 N/A No

Hanson Brick East, LLC 327121 9 15 51.2 1,021 No

Hebron Brick Company 327121 1 1 NA 55 Yes

Henry Brick Company, Inc. 327121 1 2 5.3 60 Yes

International Chimney Corp. 327121 1 1 27.9 250 Yes

Ironrock Capital (formerly 

Metropolitan Ceramics, Inc.) 327122 1 4 NA 175 Yes

Kansas Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 1 3.5 35 Yes

Kasten Clay Products Co. 327121 1 1 3.8 42 Yes

L.P. McNear Brick Co, Inc. 327121 1 1 11.0 75 Yes

Lee Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 4 35.0 175 Yes

Logan Clay Products 327123 0 0 13.5 175 Yes

Marion Ceramics, Inc. 327123 1 1 5.3 75 Yes

McAvoy Brick Co. 327121 1 1 1.8 7 Yes

Mohawk Industries 327122 2 5 5,788.0 NA No

Mutual Materials Co. 327121 & 327123 2 2 7.5 35 Yes

Old Virginia Brick Co. 327121 2 3 22.1 175 Yes

(continued)
2-11

Table 2-4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities (continued)

Company ICR NAICS

Affected 

Facilities

Affected 

Kilns

Sales 

(Million $) Employment Small

Pacific Clay Products 327121 1 3 27.2 175 Yes

Pine Hall Brick Co., Inc. 327121 1 6 30.2 35 Yes

Ragland Clay Products, LLC 327121 1 1 1.9 35 Yes

Richards Brick Co. 327121 1 2 18.1 75 Yes

Sioux City Brick and Tile Co. 327121 2 3 7.5 35 Yes

Statesville Brick Co. 327121 1 2 35.0 175 Yes

Summit Pressed Brick and Tile 

Co. 327121 1 1 8.5 75 Yes

Summitville Tiles, Inc. 327122 1 4 300.0 175 Yes

Superior Clay Corp. 327121 0 0 7.4 75 Yes

The Stiles & Hart Brick Company 327121 0 0 4.8 44 Yes

Triangle Brick 327121 2 5 29.8 203 Yes

Watsontown Brick Co. 327121 1 2 4.1 35 Yes

Whitacre Greer 327121 1 2 8.7 75 Yes

Yankee Hill Brick and Tile 327121 1 1 NA 75 Yes

NA = No annual sales data

Sources: Data on total number of ultimate parent company employees and annual sales were gathered from 

Hoover’s, Manta, and company Web sites.

2.5 Market Data and Trends

This section presents historical market data for select bricks and structural clay products.

Historical market data include U.S. volumes for manufacturers’ shipments,7 foreign trade, and 

apparent consumption. Data were obtained from various years of Current Industrial Reports 

published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 2-5 provides data for common, building, and 

face bricks, while Table 2-6 presents data for structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, 

including unglazed and glazed, and vitrified clay and sewer pipe. Table 2-7 focuses on structural 

clay tile (except facing), and Table 2-8 is for clay floor and wall tile.

 7

The source reports list both shipment and production quantities. Here we have chosen shipment quantities over 

production quantities, even though these do not differ by much in each year or show different trends over time. 

The reason to choose shipment numbers over production numbers is that shipment quantity is the number that is 

relevant for final consumption. In fact, when the data source reports calculate “apparent consumption,” they use 

shipment numbers, not production numbers.
2-12

Table 2-5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa): 1993–

2010

Year

Shipment of 

Bricksb Exports Imports

Apparent 

Consumptionb

1993 6,655,400 42,643 10,170 6,622,927

1994 7,237,982 43,733 8,967 7,203,216

1995 6,890,321 43,627 16,867 6,863,561

1996 7,619,279 42,759 20,629 7,597,149

1997 7,732,971 46,518 20,267 7,706,720

1998 8,241,086 40,631 18,243 8,218,698

1999 8,931,700 34,171 24,920 8,922,449

2000 8,616,784 30,712 47,472 8,633,544

2001 7,941,432 30,547 27,579 7,938,464

2002 7,986,393 37,135 25,164 7,974,422

2003 8,519,678 46,286 20,807 8,494,199

2004 9,388,648 75,297 33,436 9,346,787

2005 9,418,759 52,008 49,432 9,416,183

2006 8,899,594 36,421 75,717 8,938,890

2007 7,237,176 40,613 70,914 7,267,477

2008 5,053,935 47,898 97,739 5,103,776

2009 3,585,481 37,640d,f 74,479e,f 3,622,320

2010 3,495,657 37,532d,f 79,054e,f 3,537,179

Note: This table presents data for brick (building or common and face), which, by the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with 

NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing.

a Bricks are 2 1/4′′ by 3 5/8′′ by 7 5/8′′ brick equivalent.

b This represents shipment quantity of bricks. The definition of value of shipments can be found on the “definitions” Web page 

for Current Industrial Reports at Census Bureau’s Web site (http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html). 

The relevant item is “quantity and value of shipments.” The figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical 

shipments of all products sold, transferred to other establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether 

for domestic or export sale. The value represents the net sales price, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the 

products are shipped, net of discounts, allowances, freight charges, and returns. Shipments to a company’s own branches are 

assigned the same value as comparable appropriate allocation of company overhead and profit. Products bought and resold 

without further manufacture are excluded.

c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Bricks − Exports + Imports

d The export data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The export 

numbers seem to have the same pattern as shipment numbers. In particular, during 2001–2002 and 2007–2008 when brick 

shipment numbers were low, brick export numbers were also low. So we have estimated the numbers for 2009 and 2010 based 

on the regression exports = a + b*shipments, using 1993 to 2008 data. Another source of information for estimating export 

quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. 

However, because we lack reliable data on export prices for those years, we do not estimate the quantities of exports for 2009 

and 2010 from the values data.

(continued)
2-13

Table 2-5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa): 1993–

2010 (continued)

e The import data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The import 

numbers do not seem to be correlated with shipment numbers. For example, during 2001–2002 and 2007–2008 when brick 

shipment numbers were low, brick import numbers were not that low. In fact, plotting the numbers suggests that imports show 

an increasing trend since 1993. So we have extrapolated to estimate the numbers for 2009 and 2010 assuming a linear trend 

beginning in the year 1993. We fond imports to be lower in 2009 and 2010 compared with 2008, because the linear trend starts 

in 1993, and the unusually high 2008 number is only an outlier outside this trend. Another source of information for estimating 

import quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are 

available. The value of imports drops approximately 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack data on import prices 

for those years, we did not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values.

f Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and 

2010 the industrial reports only list export and import values and not quantities, they do report both quantities and values for 

shipment. So with the latter information, we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the 

export and import quantities. We explored any systematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, 

and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systematically 

different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and 

import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (47,775 for 2009 and 65,099 for

2010) and import quantities (26,069 for 2009 and 23,956 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed to be quite 

different from past-year trends. So we decided to opt for the regression method of estimation.

g As previous notes indicate, export and import numbers for 2009 and 2010 are estimates. So the annual growth rates are 

computed for both 1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2008.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2002.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1997.

As shown in Table 2-5, the brick market shows declines in the quantity of shipments and 

apparent consumption between 1993 and 2010 with a marked decreases during the recessions 

beginning in 2007. An examination of the data during the time period 1993 to 2010 shows that 

brick shipment and apparent consumption increased during some years and decreased during 

other years. However, because of the steep declines beginning in 2007, 2010 values are only 

about 53% of 1993 values. Brick shipments steadily increased from about 6.6 billion bricks in 

1993 to 8.6 billion bricks in 2000, dropped somewhat in 2001 and remained below the 2000 level 

until 2003, and rose again in 2004 and 2005 before beginning a steady decline starting in 2006.
2-14

Table 2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010

Year

Shipments of Select 

Structural Clay 

Products

a Exportsb Importsb

Apparent 

Consumptionc

1993 193,500 287 648 193,861

1994 188,039 3,187 915 185,767

1995 183,967 1,543 388 182,812

1996 204,908 1,610 345 203,643

1997 218,013 1,334 888 217,568

1998 207,815 2,291 291 205,815

1999 231,876 1,176 389 231,089

2000 217,448 2,092 346 215,702

2001 216,685 1,219 220 215,686

2002 177,558 1,583 607 176,582

2003 177,620 1,258 374 176,736

2004 210,981 1,473 915 210,423

2005 258,393 1,218 526 257,701

2006 219,911 1,041 341 219,211

2007 195,064 1,102 536 194,497

2008 132,181 1,164 463 131,480

2009 98,439d 1,138e,g 512f,g 97,813h

2010 73,183d 1,098e,g 512f,g 72,597h

Note: This table presents data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed, which, according to 

the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing, and 

vitrified clay and sewer pipe, which, according to the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327123, Other 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing. According to our communication with Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau, in all 

the Table 1s in the Current Industrial Reports, the category listed as “Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick”

should in fact be “Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed.” The Current 

Industrial Reports since 1998 omitted the phrase “including unglazed and salt glazed” and only mentioned structural 

facing tile and ceramic glazed brick. 

Calculation rules used when computing numbers from the Industrial reports for this table are 1 million brick equivalent = 

2,000 short tons and 1 metric ton = 1.10231131 short ton. The source for the first formula is 

http://midlandbrick.wikidot.com/standard-brick-equivalent, which says that 1 standard brick equivalent is equal to a 4 

pound brick. Because 1 short ton is equal to 2,000 pounds, this implies the conversion ratio used here.

(continued)
2-15

Table 2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010 (continued)

a This represents shipment quantity of select structural clay products. The definition of value of shipments can be found on the 

“definitions” Web page for Current Industrial Reports at the Census Bureau’s Web site 

(http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html). The relevant item is quantity and value of shipments. The 

figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical shipments of all products sold, transferred to other 

establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether for domestic or export sale. The value represents the 

net sales price, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the products are shipped, net of discounts, allowances, freight 

charges, and returns. Shipments to a company’s own branches are assigned the same value as comparable appropriate 

allocation of company overhead and profit. Products bought and resold without further manufacture are excluded.

b For export and import numbers between 1998 and 2008, the export and import data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick 

including unglazed and salt glazed are not available in the source reports (marked as (X) in the source reports), so the export 

and import numbers are computed with vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings data only.

c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Select SCP − Exports + Imports

d Readers should interpret these numbers carefully. For the 2009 and 2010 shipment numbers, the shipment data for facing tile 

and ceramic glazed brick are not available in the source report and are marked as “(S).” “(S)” means that the numbers did not 

meet publication standards. We talked to Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau and learned that these numbers involved over 50% 

of imputation, which is the reason they were not published. However, these imputed numbers were available upon our request, 

and the 2009–2010 shipment numbers in this table were calculated using these numbers for facing tile and ceramic glazed 

brick including unglazed and salt glazed. Numbers for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are available in the source reports.

e Because the export quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers for 

2009 and 2010 are estimates for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings exports. The export numbers for vitrified clays do not 

seem to be correlated to shipment numbers. In particular, during the 2002–2003 and 2007–2008 recessions when shipment 

numbers are low, the vitrified clay export numbers are not low. Further, plotting the numbers suggests that the exports have 

decreased over time and exhibit smaller fluctuations over time since 1993. So we have extrapolated the numbers for 2009 and 

2010 assuming a linear trend beginning in the year 1993. Another source of information for estimating export quantities is that, 

in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. However, because 

we lack reliable data on export prices, we do not estimate quantities of exports for 2009 and 2010 from these values.

f Because import quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers here

are based on estimates. The import numbers do not seem to have the same pattern as the shipment numbers. In particular, 

during 2002–2003 and 2007–2008 when shipment numbers were obviously low, the import numbers were not. Plotting the 

numbers suggests that imports of structural clay products have fluctuated widely. So we simply set these numbers at their 

historical average. Another source of information for estimating import quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the 

values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. Similar to bricks, the value of imports for vitrified clay 

sewer pipe and fittings dropped by about 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack reliable data on import prices, we 

did not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values.

g Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and 

2010 the industrial reports only list export and import values and not quantities, they do report both quantities and values for 

shipment. So with the latter information we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the 

export and import quantities. We explored any systematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, 

and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systematically 

different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and 

import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (725 for 2009 and 1,346 for 2010) 

and import quantities (206 for 2009 and 206 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed to be quite different from 

past-year trends. So we used the regression method of estimation for exports and historical average method for imports.

h These are based on estimates. Please see notes e, f, and g.

i As previous notes suggest, data for 2009 and 2010 are based on estimates. So the annual growth rates were computed for both 

1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2008.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2006.

(continued)
2-16

Table 2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010 (continued)

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2004.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2002.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2001.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1994.

Both exports and imports of bricks increased between 1993 and 2008. The largest quantity 

of brick exports are to Canada (approximately 78% in 2010) (U.S. International Trade Commission 

[USITC], 2013). The largest quantities of brick and structural clay imports are from Germany 

(40% in 2010) and Mexico (37% in 2010)8 (USITC, 2013). The average annual growth rate for 

exports was 3.16% during this time period. The growth rate for imports was much larger at 

22.61%. In 1993, imports were about 10 million and jumped to 98 million by 2010, with 

significant increases happening in 1995, 2000, 2006, and 2008. This difference between brick 

export and import growth rates is also evident if we examine exports and imports as proportions of 

shipments instead of their levels. Exports started at 0.64% of shipments in the year 1993 but had 

dropped to 0.41% by 2006. Imports started at 0.15% of shipments in 1993 but rose to 0.85% of 

shipments in 2006. After 2006, both these ratios rose. By 2010, exports and imports as a 

percentage of shipments rose to 1.07% and 2.26%, respectively. But the rises since 2006 were 

driven more by decreases in shipments, rather than by changes in the levels of exports and imports.

 8

Although these two countries typically are the largest source of imports, the country shares vary from year to year. 

For example, in 2012, Germany and Mexico again accounted for more than 65% of imports, but Mexico 

represented 40% and Germany accounted for 24%.
2-17

Table 2-7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993–

2010

Year Shipments of Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing)

1993 (D)

1994 (D)

1995 53,727

1996 50,990

1997 49,729

1998 49,098

1999 47,156

2000 47,009

2001 49,453

2002 49,563

2003 40,330

2004 40,050

2005 47,704

2006 37,491

2007 35,477

2008 23,410

2009 16,749

2010 12,140

Average Annual Growth Rates

1995–2010 −8.31%

Note: This table presents data for structural clay tile (except facing), which, by 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with 

NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing. Unlike Table 2-7 and Table 2-8, this table does not 

show exports, imports, or apparent consumption, because the export and import data for structural clay tile (except 

facing) are not available (marked as (X) in the source reports). “(D)” means that the number is “withheld to avoid 

disclosing data of individual companies” in the source report.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2010

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2008

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2006

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2004

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2003

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2002

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2001

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1999

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1998

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1994.
2-18

The market for other structural clay products is much smaller than the brick market, but it 

still represents an important sector of the BSCP industry. As Table 2-6 shows, both shipments 

and apparent consumption of structural clay products in 2010 were less than 38% of 1993 values. 

Similar to the trend in the brick market, structural clay product shipments exhibited a steady 

increase from 194 thousand short tons in 1993 to 232 thousand short tons in 1999, dropped 

somewhat during the recession in 2002 and 2003, rose between 2003 and 2006, and began a 

steady decline starting in 2007.

Although structural clay product shipments and consumption declined over the time 

period 1993 to 2008, the average annual growth rate of exports was high at 67.42%. Although 

this growth rate looks large, it is relatively small in absolute terms. This high average growth rate 

is largely due to a substantial increase in exports of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings from 1993 to 

1994. In 1993, 287 short tons of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings were exported from the United 

States, and in 1994, this number rose dramatically to 3,187 short tons. Since 1995, exports have 

mostly stayed between 1,000 and 2,000 short tons. Imports of structural clay products are small, 

never exceeding a thousand short tons in any year between 1993 and 2008.

The shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) are even smaller than other structural 

clay products (which are presented in Table 2-6). As Table 2-7 shows, the average annual growth 

rate of shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) is approximately −8.3% for the years 

1995 to 2010. More specifically, the shipments exhibit a steady decrease from 54 thousand short 

tons in 1995 to 35 thousand short tons in 2007, during which period the average annual growth 

rate is only −2.9%. Then in the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, the shipment levels dropped sharply 

by 34.0%, 28.5%, and 27.5%, respectively.

As the data in Tables 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 show, the quantities of all BSCP experienced 

declines starting in 2007, the year the recent economic crisis set in, and continued to decline 

post-crisis. The data show that shipment levels had recovered after the 2002–2003 recession and 

held steady for the years prior to 2007. The decline since 2007 also appears to be due to the 

2007–2008 recession rather than to structural changes within the industry. We expect the 

industry to come back to its prerecession levels in the future. This is supported by the fact that 

shipment levels for all BSCP were low during 2001–2003, when the early 2000s recession 

happened in the United States and the European Union. However, these shipment levels bounced 

back after the recession. This prediction is also supported by the recent annual reports of large 

companies producing these products. For example, the annual reports of large companies such as 

Boral Limited and Saint-Gobain show them recovering after exhibiting declines during the 

recession.
2-19

Boral Limited is an international building and construction materials group headquartered 

in Australia, and its U.S. operations manufacture clay bricks, concrete, and clay roof tiles and 

manufactured stone veneer for residential and mid-rise commercial buildings.9 The 2012 annual 

report of Boral Limited compares U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A.’s earnings before interest 

and taxes (EBIT) during the years 2006–2012 and finds them to be highly correlated (Boral 

Limited, 2012). Both the numbers for U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A.’s EBIT in the United 

States declined simultaneously between 2006 and 2011 but rose in 2012. U.S. housing starts 

went from 2,030 thousand in fiscal year 2006 to 570 thousand in fiscal year 2011, and Boral 

U.S.A.’s EBIT declined to −$99 million in 2011 from $139 million in 2006. Boral U.S.A.’s 

EBIT rose to −$87 million in fiscal year 2012 when U.S. housing starts increased to 685 

thousand.

Saint-Gobain S.A, which produces construction products marketed in the United States 

under the CertainTeed brand, is a Europe-based multinational company and does not provide its 

U.S. operations data separately. However, its overall data exhibit synchronization with the 

economic cycles. Its net sales declined from 30,274 million euros in 2002 (Saint-Gobain, 2003; 

2013) to 29,590 million euros in 2003, showed a steady recovery after that to 43,800 million 

euros in 2008, declined in 2009 to 37,786 million euros, and then recovered in 2011 and 2012 to 

42,116 million euros and 43,198 million euros, respectively (Saint-Gobain, 2013).

Although their annual reports do not provide data on quantities in shipment, production,

or exports as the Current Industrial Reports do, the recent trends in the financial performance of 

these large companies, in particular the profit and sales data, support that this industry will 

improve as the effects of the recession recede and the building and construction industry revives.

In addition, our prediction that the BSCP industry is only experiencing a temporary 

setback and will come back to prerecession levels is supported by existing reports for the clay 

and shale industry, which is upstream of the BSCP industry. Put another way, raw materials 

typically used in manufacturing BSCP include common clay and shale (Midwest Research 

Institute, 2001). A recent advance report published in 2013 by the U.S. Department of the 

Interior and USGS suggests that once statistical data become available, the country may see a 

moderate growth in common clay sales in 2012 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2013). In their 

 9

This information is from the company’s Web site, http://www.boral.com. According to the Web site, Boral’s 

operations include the largest brick manufacturer and the largest clay tile manufacturer in the United States; 

through the 50% owned MonierLifetile, it is also the largest concrete roof tile manufacturer in the United States.
2-20

analysis, the factors supporting the growth are the increases in housing starts and construction 

spending for commercial buildings similar to what is evident from the Boral USA example.

2.5.1 Market Prices

Average prices for brick and structural products vary by product type and over time. In 

2010, the average price of brick was approximately $248 per 1,000 S.B.E., clay floor and wall 

tile was approximately $1.30 per square foot, and vitrified clay sewer pipe and fitting were $496 

per short ton (Table 2-8). There is substantial variation in average brick prices across Census 

regions ($183 to $541), as shown in Table 2-9. Since 2005, average nominal prices for bricks 

and clay floor and wall tile have remained flat or fallen (Figure 2-2), while average nominal 

prices for other structural clay products have risen to higher levels.

Table 2-8. Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010

Product Average Price Units

Brick, building or common and facing $248 $ per 1,000 S.B.E.

Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings $496 $ per short ton

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

Table 2-9. Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and 

Facing: 2010

Census Region $ per 1,000 S.B.E.

New England $379

Middle Atlantic $324

East North Central $297

West North Central $272

South Atlantic $227

East South Central $183

West South Central $225

Mountain $355

Pacific $541

United States $248

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.
2-21

Figure 2-2. Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Labor Statistics, 2013a,b

2.6 References

Boral Limited. 2012. Annual Report 2012. 

http://www.boral.com.au/Images/common/pdfs/annual-reports/Boral-Annual-Report2012.pdf.

Brick Industry Association. 2013a. An Overview of the American Brick Industry. 

http://www.gobrick.com/resources/americanbrickindustry/tabid/7644/default.aspx

(accessed on August 16, 2013).

Brick Industry Association. 2013b. 2012 Brick Industry Annual Report. Version 4.0.

Federal Reserve Board. 2013. Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization—G.17. 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ (August 16, 2013).

Ho, M., R. Morgenstern, J. Shih. 2008. Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry. 

Resources for the Future Discussion Paper DP 08-37. 

http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-08-37.pdf.

Midwest Research Institute. 2001. Industry Characterization for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing. 
2-22

Mohawk Industries, Inc. 2012. 2011 Annual Report. http://phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTMzMjE1fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZ

T0z&t=1.

National Association of Homebuilders. 2013. NAHB Study Reveals What Home Buyers Really 

Want. February 19, 2013.

Rutherford, T.F. 2002. Lecture Notes on Constant Elasticity Functions. 

http://www.gamsworld.eu/mpsge/debreu/ces.pdf.

Saint-Gobain. 2003 Annual Report 2002. http://www.saintgobain.com/files/Rapport_annuel_2002_EN.pdf.

Saint-Gobain. 2013. Registration Document 2012. http://www.saintgobain.com/files/Rapport_annuel_2012_EN.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013a. Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current 

Employment Statistics survey (National) Series ID: CEU3132700003.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013b. Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers Series ID: 

CUUR0000SA0.

U.S. Census Bureau 2013a. Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Statistics for 

Industry Groups and Industries: 2011 and 2010; generated by RTI International; using 

American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov. (August 16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. Geography Area Series: County Business Patterns: 2011; generated 

by RTI International; using American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov. (August 

16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013c. Historical New Residential Construction Started. 

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/historical_data/. (August 16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013d. New Residential Construction Press Release. August 16, 2013. 

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/. (August 16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013e. Manufacturing: Subject Series: Concentration Ratios: Share of 

Value of Shipments Accounted for by the 4, 8, 20, and 50 Largest Companies for 

Industries: 2007; generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder. 

http://factfinder2.census.gov. (September 12, 2013).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2008.
2-23

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2006.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2004.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2002.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2001.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products; Summary, 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1994.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. May 2013. 2011 Minerals Yearbook, 

Clay and Shale [Advance Release].

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1-2011-clays.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. 2007 Commodity 

Flow Survey United States. Table 15. 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/commodity_flow_surv

ey/final_tables_december_2009/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, 

Section 11.3, “Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Final Report.”

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s03.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Minerals Yearbook: Clay and Shale. Written by R. L. Virta.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1-2011-clays.pdf.
2-24

U.S. International Trade Commission. Interactive Trade and DataWeb. U.S. Imports for 

Consumption and U.S. Domestic Exports, NAICS 327121. (December 31, 2013). 

http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, then search for NAICS 327121.

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2013. Table of Small Business Size Standards.

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/size_table_07222013.pdf.
3-1

SECTION 3

ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS

Production of BSCP results in emissions of pollutants such as hydrogen fluoride (HF), 

hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine (Cl2), mercury (Hg), and non-Hg hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) metals from the kilns used in the production process. To control these emissions, EPA has 

developed emission standards for these HAPs under the authority of Section 112 of the CAA.

This section explains how the estimates of compliance costs associated with this regulation were

developed, and it is organized as follows:

■ Section 3.1, Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach: This section 

describes the regulatory approaches considered in this analysis and presents the 

annual cost for each of the compliance options and the various regions of the country.

It also describes the air pollution control devices (APCDs) and the pollutants targeted 

because they are key to understanding how the annual costs were obtained.

■ Section 3.2, Summary of Costs by Control Device: There are various APCD 

implementation options to meet the compliance requirements. This section presents 

the overall capital and annual costs for those implementation options. It also provides 

key considerations for how the costs were derived. 

3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach

EPA evaluated costs for affected BSCP facilities under two regulatory approaches:

■ Proposed Standards: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton 

or concentration, and a choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf or non-Hg 

HAP metals in lb/hr for all kilns with no emissions averaging.

■ Alternate Standards: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton 

or concentration, and a choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf or non-Hg 

HAP metals lb/hr for small and large kilns (emissions averaging is allowed to meet 

the PM and non-Hg HAP metals limits).

Both approaches assume the facility would choose to become a Synthetic Area (SA) by 

installing dry limestone adsorbers (DLAs) on uncontrolled kilns if that is less expensive than 

installing the control needed to comply with the compliance option. Both approaches have 

separate Hg numeric limits for large and small kilns, and the HBS applies to all kilns at the 

facility for all compliance options.

These costs include the implementation of various APCDs. The following are the APCDs 

considered:
3-2

■ Dry injection fabric filter (DIFF). DIFFs are used to remove HF, HCl, Cl2, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and PM. They work by injecting hydrated lime (a dry lime powder) 

into the kiln exhaust. The lime and kiln exhaust mix in a reaction chamber or an 

exhaust duct and are ducted to a fabric filter. The lime reacts with and removes HF, 

HCl, Cl2, and SO2 from the exhaust stream.

■ Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF). DLS/FFs are used to control HF, HCl, Cl2, 

SO2, and PM emissions. These systems mix hydrated lime and water in a 

conditioning drum and then inject the lime/water slurry into a reaction chamber, 

where the slurry mixes with the kiln exhaust. Acid gas removal takes place in the 

reaction chamber, subsequent ductwork, and across the lime-caked fabric filter bags. 

From the reaction chamber, the exhaust stream is ducted to a fabric filter for PM 

removal.

■ Dry limestone adsorber (DLA). DLAs are used to control HF, HCl, Cl2, and SO2

emissions. Limestone is fed into the top of a reaction chamber countercurrent to the 

kiln exhaust gases. The limestone cascades through multiple baffles within the 

chamber and reacts with and removes HF and, to a lesser degree, HCl, Cl2 and SO2

from the kiln exhaust. The system does not provide a mechanism for controlling PM.

■ Fabric filter (FF). FFs are used to control PM emissions. Most FFs use long, 

cylindrical bags made of a woven material that acts as a filter medium. Gas enters the 

FF and is drawn through the bags, and PM accumulates in layers on the surface of the 

filter media until gas can no longer move through the bag. When the system reaches a 

sufficient pressure drop due to PM build-up, the bag will be cleaned. The system does 

not provide a mechanism for controlling Hg, HCl, Cl2, or SO2.

■ Activated carbon injection (ACI). An ACI system would pneumatically inject 

activated carbon into the flue gas ductwork of a kiln. The activated carbon adsorbs 

the vaporized mercury from the flue gas and is then collected with the fly ash in a 

particulate collection device. This device is assumed to work with a fabric filter for 

particulates collection.

Cost estimates were developed for each BSCP facility assuming the APCDs are 

implemented according to various scenarios. In general, an FF and ACI were assumed to be the 

APCD needed to meet the MACT limits for an uncontrolled kiln. Table 3-1 presents the general 

implementation scenarios for tunnel kilns required to meet MACT for all pollutants. 
3-3

Table 3-1. APCD Implementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits

APCD

Meets Non-Hg 

HAP Metals or PM 

Limit

Meets Mercury

Limit APCD Implementation Scenario

None Yes No Install new FF with ACI

None No Yes Install new FF

None No No Install new FF with ACI

Existing DIFF Yes Yes No action

Existing DIFF Yes No Add ACI

Existing DIFF No Yes Retrofit DIFF for PM control

Existing DIFF No No Retrofit DIFF for PM control; add ACI

Existing DLS/FF Yes Yes No action

Existing DLA Yes No Add FF with ACI

Existing DLA No Yes Add FF

Existing DLA No No Add FF with ACI

The option to “Install new DLA” was evaluated for facilities to become an SA. All 

scenarios in Table 3-1 assume meeting the HBS for acid gases.

The following are the scenarios considered to meet the HBSs:

■ If a kiln can meet the non-Hg HAP metals or PM and Hg MACT limits and is located 

at a facility that can meet the health-based limits, no additional costs would be 

incurred.

■ If an uncontrolled kiln or a kiln with a DLA is located at a facility that can meet the 

health-based limits, then only an FF would be needed to meet the non-Hg HAP 

metals or PM MACT limit, and activated carbon injection would be needed to meet 

the Hg MACT limit.

■ Because the health-based limits are on a facility-wide basis, the owner or operator of 

a facility not meeting the health-based limits with current controls may not have to 

add an APCD to every uncontrolled kiln and enhance every existing APCD.

Engineering judgment was used to assign minimum control “actions needed” based 

on a review of the contribution of each emission point’s to the allowable HClequivalent emissions. Additional information about this assessment is presented in the 

memorandum “Details on the Estimation of Engineering Costs Associated with the 

Implementation of the Compliance Options for the BSCP Sector” included in the 

docket.

Table 3-2 presents the annual cost for each of the regulatory approaches.
3-4

Table 3-2. National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 million USD)

Regions Proposed 

Standards

Alternate 

Standards

NEG New England $0 $0

MID Middle Atlantic $1 $1

ENC East North Central $4 $6

WNC West North Central $1 $2

SAC South Atlantic $7 $11

ESC East South Central $2 $4

WSC West South Central $5 $7

MTN Mountain <$1 <$1

PAC Pacific <$1 $1

USA United States $21 $31

3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device

A key component of the total annual costs presented in Table 3-1 is the implementation 

cost of the APCDs required to (1) meet the MACT limits for Hg and for non-Hg HAP metals or 

PM, (2) become an SA source, and/or (3) meet an HBS for acid gases, according to the 

compliance options. This section provides an overview of how the capital and annual costs of 

implementation were estimated. Additional information about those estimates is provided in the 

memorandum “Details on the Estimation of Engineering Costs Associated with the 

Implementation of the Compliance Options for the BSCP Sector” included in the docket.

Consistent with the information presented in Section 3.1, the following are the APCD 

implementation scenarios considered in this analysis:

■ Install new DLA

■ Install new ACI

■ Install new FF

■ Install new FF and ACI

■ Retrofit with DIFF

■ Retrofit with DIFF and ACI

■ No action
3-5

Table 3-3 presents the capital and annual costs of each implementation option.

Table 3-3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD)

Control options

Capital Costs Annual Costs

Small APCD Large APCD Small APCD Large APCD

Install new FF $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $437,845 $526,006

Install new DLA $1,096,473 $1,489,548 $310,036 $409,718

Install new ACI $102,224 $146,697 $70,589 $96,842

Install new DIFF and ACI $2,102,224 $2,876,697 $683,886 $893,938

Install new FF and ACI $1,302,224 $1,646,697 $508,434 $622,848

Retrofit with DIFF $2,800,000 $3,820,000 $720,811 $943,585

Retrofit with DIFF and ACI $2,902,224 $3,966,697 $791,400 $1,040,427

Costs are presented for small and large APCDs. A small control device would be used if 

the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to that device is less than 10 tons of bricks per 

hour. A large control device would be used if the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to 

that device is 10 tons of bricks or more per hour. Capital cost data were generally obtained from 

the Information Collection Request (ICR) and supplemented with information from literature 

sources.

The estimates of annual cost include

■ operation and maintenance (O&M) labor;

■ materials;

■ electricity;

■ waste disposal;

■ overhead; and

■ property taxes, insurance, and administration.

Information pertaining to cost data sources and how they were used to develop unit costs 

for each APCD is provided in the memorandum “Methodology and Assumptions Used to 

Estimate the Model Costs and Impacts of BSCP Air Pollution Control Devices.”
3-6

Annualization of the capital costs involves establishing an annual “payment” sufficient to 

finance the investment over the expected lifetime of the equipment or loan period. This payment 

is typically referred to as the “capital recovery cost.” The three key inputs into the capital 

recovery costs are the capital costs, the interest rate, and the equipment life. This analysis 

assumed a 20-year equipment life and a 7% interest rate, which corresponds to the interest rate 

used in OAQPS’s analyses. 

3.3 Summary of Results

This section presents total annualized costs for each regulatory approach. Total 

annualized cost is the sum of the annualized capital cost and the annual costs. The following is a 

summary of those results:

■ Proposed Standards: approximately $21 million

■ Alternate Standards: approximately $31 million

Annual costs listed above for each compliance option also include costs for testing and 

monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs incurred by facilities that have testing 

and monitoring costs.

When looking at annual costs per region of the country, the South Atlantic region (SAC)

consistently exhibits the highest cost and the Pacific region (PAC) the lowest nonzero cost.

The APCD requirements vary by approach, and the following is a summary of the annual 

costs for each of the APCD implementation scenarios, presented as ranges for small and large 

APCDs:

■ Install new DIFF: $613,297–$797,096

■ Install new FF: $437,845–$526,006

■ Install new DLA: $310,036–$409,718

■ Install new ACI: $70,589–$96,842

■ Install new DIFF and ACI: $683,886–$893,938

■ Install new FF and ACI: $508,434–$622,848

■ Retrofit with DIFF: $720,811–$943,585

■ Retrofit with DIFF and ACI: $791,400–$1,040,427
3-7

Retrofitting with DIFF and ACI is the option that exhibits the highest cost and installing a 

new ACI system the lowest, which is consistent with the capital cost results.

We provide additional details on the number of stacks required to take action to achieve 

compliance (Table 3-4). Additional details on existing baseline control devices is presented in 

the memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP 

NESHAP” included in the docket.

Table 3-4. Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD)

Action to Achieve Compliance

Standards Parameter

Install DLA 

(become 

SA)

Install 

FF

Install FF 

+ ACI

Add ACI 

to Existing 

APCD

Retrofit 

with 

DIFF Totals

Proposed Number of 

Stacks

14 4 16 3 1 38

Capital Cost $18.9 $5.40 $26.3 $0.440 $3.82 $54.9

Annual Cost $5.24 $1.93 $10.0 $0.289 $0.944 $18.4

Alternate Number of 

Stacks

31 16 15 3 1 66

Capital Cost $38.3 $21.6 $24.7 $0.440 $3.82 $88.9

Annual Cost $10.7 $7.71 $9.34 $0.289 $0.944 $29.0
4-1

SECTION 4

HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

Synopsis

Implementation of emissions controls required by the proposed Brick and Structural Clay 

NESHAP is expected to reduce direct emissions of particulate matter in particular PM2.5 and 

sulfur dioxide SO2 that are the result of emissions limits that are being tightened for a number of 

categories, and imposed for the first time for other categories. In this section, we quantify the 

monetized co-benefits for this rule associated with reducing exposure to ambient fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) by reducing emissions of precursors. The total PM2.5 and SO2 reductions are the 

consequence of the expected design changes to the affected manufacturing plants needed in order 

to meet the multiple limits. We estimate the total monetized co-benefits to be $52 million to 

$120 million at a 3% discount rate and $47 million to $110 million at a 7% discount rate on a 

yearly average in 2018 for the proposed standards. All estimates are in 2011$. These estimates 

reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature 

mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource, and 

methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important 

benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each 

year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAPs each year through 

one of the regulatory approaches, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to 

PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, this rule would 

reduce several non-mercury HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year.

4.1 PM2.5-Related Human Health Co-Benefits

This rule is expected to reduce direct emissions of PM and emissions of SO2, which is a 

precursor to formation of ambient PM2.5. Therefore, reducing these emissions would also reduce 

human exposure to ambient PM2.5 and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. In this 

section, we provide an overview of the PM2.5-related benefits. A full description of the 

underlying data, studies, and assumptions is provided in the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 

2012a).

In implementing this rule, emission controls may lead to reductions in ambient PM2.5 

concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM in some 

areas and assist other areas with attaining the PM NAAQS. Because the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. 

EPA, 2012a) also calculated PM benefits, there are important differences worth noting in the 
4-2

design and analytical objectives of each RIA. The NAAQS RIAs illustrate the potential costs and 

benefits of attaining a revised air quality standard nationwide based on an array of emission 

reduction strategies for different sources including known and unknown controls, incremental to 

implementation of existing regulations and controls need to attain the current standards. In short, 

NAAQS RIAs hypothesize, but do not predict, the reduction strategies that States may choose to 

enact when implementing a revised NAAQS. The setting of a NAAQS does not directly result in 

costs or benefits, and as such, the NAAQS RIAs are merely illustrative and the estimated costs 

and benefits are not intended to be added to the costs and benefits of other regulations that result 

in specific costs of control and emission reductions. However, it is possible that some costs and 

benefits associated with the required emission controls estimated in this RIA may account for the 

same air quality improvements as estimated in the illustrative PM NAAQS RIA. 

By contrast, the emission reductions for implementation rules such as this rulemaking are 

generally for specific, well-characterized sources. In general, EPA is more confident in the 

magnitude and location of the emission reductions for implementation rules. As such, emission 

reductions achieved under these and other promulgated implementation rules will ultimately be 

reflected in the baseline of future NAAQS analyses, which would reduce the incremental costs 

and benefits associated with attaining revised future NAAQS. EPA remains forward looking 

towards the next iteration of the 5-year review cycle for the NAAQS. As a result, EPA does not 

re-issue NAAQS RIAs that retroactively update the baseline to account for implementation rules 

promulgated after a NAAQS RIA outside of the NAAQS review process. For more information 

on the relationship between the NAAQS and implementation rules such as analyzed here, please 

see Section 1.3 of the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a).

4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment

The Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA) (U.S. EPA, 2009) 

identified the human health effects associated with ambient PM2.5, which include premature 

morality and a variety of morbidity effects associated with acute and chronic exposures. Table 

4-1 provides the quantified and unquantified benefits captured in EPA’s benefits estimates for 

reduced exposure to ambient PM2.5. Although the table below does not include entries for the 

unquantified health effects such as exposure to ozone and NO2 nor welfare effects such as 

ecosystem effects and visibility impairment, these effects are itemized in Chapters 5 and 6 of the 

PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). It is important to emphasize that the list of unquantified 

benefit categories is not exhaustive, nor is quantification of each effect complete.
4-3

Table 4-1. Human Health Effects of Ambient PM2.5

Category Specific Effect

Effect Has 

Been 

Quantified

Effect Has 

Been 

Monetized

More 

Information 

in PM 

NAAQS RIA

Improved Human Health

Reduced incidence 

of premature 

mortality from 

exposure to PM2.5

Adult premature mortality based on cohort 

study estimates and expert elicitation 

estimates (age >25 or age >30)

  Section 5.6

Infant mortality (age <1)   Section 5.6

Reduced incidence 

of morbidity from 

exposure to PM2.5

Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18)   Section 5.6

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages)   Section 5.6

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age 

>20)

  Section 5.6

Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages)   Section 5.6

Acute bronchitis (age 8–12)   Section 5.6

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14)   Section 5.6

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 

9–11)

  Section 5.6

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6–18)   Section 5.6

Lost work days (age 18–65)   Section 5.6

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65)   Section 5.6

Chronic Bronchitis (age >26) --a --a Section 5.6

Emergency room visits for cardiovascular 

effects (all ages)

--a --a Section 5.6

Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 50–

79)

--a --a Section 5.6

Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages) -- -- PM ISAb

Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary 

function, non-asthma ER visits, nonbronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and 

populations)

-- -- PM ISAb

Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., 

low birth weight, pre-term births, etc.)

-- -- PM ISAb,c

Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects -- -- PM ISAb,c

a We assess these benefits qualitatively due to time and resource limitations for this analysis. In the PM NAAQS 

RIA, these benefits were quantified in a sensitivity analysis, but not in the core analysis.

b We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods.

c We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other 

significant concerns over the strength of the association.
4-4

We follow a “damage-function” approach in calculating benefits, which estimates 

changes in individual health endpoints (specific effects that can be associated with changes in air 

quality) and assigns values to those changes assuming independence of the values for those 

individual endpoints. Because EPA rarely has the time or resources to perform new research to 

measure directly either the health outcomes or their values for regulatory analyses, our estimates 

are based on the best available methods of benefits transfer, which is the science and art of 

adapting primary research from similar contexts to estimate benefits for the environmental 

quality change under analysis. 

The health impact assessment (HIA) quantifies the changes in the incidence of adverse 

health impacts resulting from changes in human exposure to PM2.5 or other air pollutants. We 

use the environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) to systematize health 

impact analyses by applying a database of key input parameters, including population 

projections, health impact functions, valuation functions (Abt Associates, 2012). For this 

assessment, the HIA is limited to those health effects that are directly linked to ambient PM2.5

concentrations. There may be other indirect health impacts associated with implementing 

emissions controls, such as occupational health exposures. Epidemiological studies generally 

provide estimates of the relative risks of a particular health effect for a given increment of air 

pollution (often per 10 μg/m3 for PM2.5). These relative risks can be used to develop risk 

coefficients that relate a unit reduction in PM2.5 to changes in the incidence of a health effect. We 

refer the reader to section 5.6 of the PM NAAQS RIA for more information regarding the 

epidemiology studies and risk coefficients applied in this analysis (U.S. EPA, 2012a), and we 

briefly elaborate on adult premature mortality below. The size of the mortality effect estimates 

from epidemiological studies, the serious nature of the effect itself, and the high monetary value 

ascribed to prolonging life make mortality risk reduction the most significant health endpoint 

quantified in this analysis.

Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of 

epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical studies, the PM ISA documents the association between 

elevated PM2.5 concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased premature 

mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009). The PM ISA, which was twice reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB-CASAC) (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2009b, 

2009c), concluded that there is a causal relationship between mortality and both long-term and 

short-term exposure to PM2.5 based on the entire body of scientific evidence. The PM ISA also 

concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-threshold log-linear model 
4-5

most adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship while 

recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration-response function. 

For mortality, we use the effect coefficients from the most recent epidemiology studies 

examining two large population cohorts: the American Cancer Society cohort (Krewski et al., 

2009) and the Harvard Six Cities cohort (Lepeule et al., 2012). The PM ISA (U.S. EPA, 2009)

concluded that the ACS and Six Cities cohorts provide the strongest evidence of the association 

between long-term PM2.5 exposure and premature mortality with support from a number of 

additional cohort studies. The SAB’s Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB-HES) also supported 

using these two cohorts for analyses of the benefits of PM reductions (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2010a). 

As both the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies have inherent strengths and weaknesses, we 

present benefits estimates using relative risk estimates from both these cohorts (Krewski et al., 

2009; Lepeule et al., 2012).

As a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5 -mortality relationship, EPA 

graphically presents benefits derived from EPA’s expert elicitation study (Roman et al., 2008; 

IEc, 2006). The primary goal of the 2006 study was to elicit from a sample of health experts 

probabilistic distributions describing uncertainty in estimates of the reduction in mortality among 

the adult U.S. population resulting from reductions in ambient annual average PM2.5 levels. In 

that study, twelve experts provided independent opinions of the PM2.5 -mortality concentrationresponse function. Because the experts relied upon the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies to 

inform their concentration-response functions, the benefits estimates derived from the expert 

responses generally fall between results derived from the these studies (see Figure 7-1). We do 

not combine the expert results in order to preserve the breadth and diversity of opinion on the 

expert panel. This presentation of the expert-derived results is generally consistent with SAB 

advice (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2008), which recommended that the EPA emphasize that “scientific 

differences existed only with respect to the magnitude of the effect of PM2.5 on mortality, not 

whether such an effect existed” and that the expert elicitation “supports the conclusion that the 

benefits of PM2.5 control are very likely to be substantial.” Although it is possible that newer 

scientific literature could revise the experts’ quantitative responses if elicited again, we believe 

that these general conclusions are unlikely to change.

4.1.2 Economic Valuation

After quantifying the change in adverse health impacts, we estimate the economic value 

of these avoided impacts. Reductions in ambient concentrations of air pollution generally lower 

the risk of future adverse health effects by a small amount for a large population. Therefore, the 
4-6

appropriate economic measure is willingness to pay (WTP) for changes in risk of a health effect. 

For some health effects, such as hospital admissions, WTP estimates are generally not available, 

so we use the cost of treating or mitigating the effect. These cost-of-illness (COI) estimates 

generally (although not necessarily in every case) understate the true value of reductions in risk 

of a health effect. They tend to reflect the direct expenditures related to treatment but not the 

value of avoided pain and suffering from the health effect. The unit values applied in this 

analysis are provided in Table 5-9 of the PM NAAQS RIA for each health endpoint (U.S. EPA, 

2012a).

Avoided premature deaths account for 98% of monetized PM-related benefits. The 

economics literature concerning the appropriate method for valuing reductions in premature 

mortality risk is still developing. The adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of 

premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the economics and public 

policy analysis community. Following the advice of the SAB’s Environmental Economics 

Advisory Committee (SAB-EEAC), the EPA currently uses the value of statistical life (VSL) 

approach in calculating estimates of mortality benefits, because we believe this calculation 

provides the most reasonable single estimate of an individual’s willingness to trade off money 

for reductions in mortality risk (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2000). The VSL approach is a summary 

measure for the value of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of 

people.

EPA continues work to update its guidance on valuing mortality risk reductions, and the 

Agency consulted several times with the SAB-EEAC on the issue. Until updated guidance is 

available, the Agency determined that a single, peer-reviewed estimate applied consistently best 

reflects the SAB-EEAC advice it has received. Therefore, EPA has decided to apply the VSL 

that was vetted and endorsed by the SAB in the Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses

(U.S. EPA, 2000)10 while the Agency continues its efforts to update its guidance on this issue. 

This approach calculates a mean value across VSL estimates derived from 26 labor market and 

contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 1991. The mean VSL across these 

studies is $6.3 million (2000$).11 We then adjust this VSL to account for the currency year used 

in this RIA and to account for income growth from 1990 to the analysis year. 

 10In the updated Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010e), EPA retained the VSL endorsed 

by the SAB with the understanding that further updates to the mortality risk valuation guidance would be 

forthcoming in the near future. 11In 1990$, this VSL is $4.8 million.
4-7

The Agency is committed to using scientifically sound, appropriately reviewed evidence 

in valuing mortality risk reductions and has made significant progress in responding to the SABEEAC’s specific recommendations. In the process, the Agency has identified a number of 

important issues to be considered in updating its mortality risk valuation estimates. These are 

detailed in a white paper on “Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Environmental Policy,” (U.S. 

EPA, 2010c) which recently underwent review by the SAB-EEAC. A meeting with the SAB on 

this paper was held on March 14, 2011 and formal recommendations were transmitted on 

July 29, 2011 (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2011). Draft guidance responding to SAB recommendations will 

be developed shortly.

In valuing premature mortality, we discount the value of premature mortality occurring in 

future years using rates of 3% and 7% (OMB, 2003). We assume that there is a “cessation” lag 

between changes in PM exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects. Although 

the structure of the lag is uncertain, the EPA follows the advice of the SAB-HES to assume a 

segmented lag structure characterized by 30% of mortality reductions in the first year, 50% over 

years 2 to 5, and 20% over the years 6 to 20 after the reduction in PM2.5 (U.S. EPA-SAB, 

2004c). Changes in the cessation lag assumptions do not change the total number of estimated 

deaths but rather the timing of those deaths.

4.1.3 Benefit-per-ton Estimates

Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this 

rule. Instead, we used a “benefit-per-ton” approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. 

EPA has applied in several previous RIAs (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2011b, 2011d, 2012b). These benefitper-ton estimates provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature 

mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of PM2.5 (or PM2.5 precursor such as 

NOx or SO2) from a specified source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the estimates 

from the “Other Non-EGU Point” sector12,13 by the corresponding emission reductions. The 

method used to derive these estimates is described in the Technical Support Document (TSD) on 

estimating the benefits-per-ton of reducing PM2.5 and its precursors (U.S. EPA, 2013). One 

limitation of using the benefit-per-ton approach is an inability to provide estimates of the health 

benefits associated with exposure to HAP, CO, NO2 or ozone.

 12As explained in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013), we only have benefit-per-ton estimates for certain analysis years (i.e., 

2005, 2016, 2020, 2025, and 2030). For this RIA, we selected the benefit-per-ton estimate closest to the analysis 

year for this RIA. 13[Data from year 2016 was used as closest to full implementation year 2018 for this rule, and the sector was 

matched with Non EGU Others category]
4-8

The benefit-per-ton estimates described in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013) were derived using 

the approach published in Fann et al. (2012), but they have since been updated to reflect the 

studies and population data in the final PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). The approach in 

Fann et al. (2012) is similar to the work previously published by Fann et al. (2009), but the 

newer study includes improvements that EPA believes would provide more reliable estimates of 

PM2.5-related health benefits for emissions reductions in specific sectors. Specifically, the air 

quality modeling data reflect sectors that are more narrowly defined. In addition, the updated air 

quality modeling data reflects more recent emissions data (2005 rather than 2001) and has higher 

spatial resolution (12km rather than 36 km grid cells). 

As noted below in the characterization of uncertainty, all benefit-per-ton estimates have 

inherent limitations. Specifically, all national-average benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the 

geographic distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission 

reductions in this rulemaking, and they may not reflect local variability in population density, 

meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors for any specific 

location. 

Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefitper-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their 

impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. The sector-specific modeling does not 

provide estimates of the PM2.5-related benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions, but 

these unquantified benefits are generally small compared to other PM2.5 precursors (U.S. EPA, 

2012a).

4.1.4 PM2.5 Co-Benefits Results

Table 4-2 summarizes the monetized PM-related health benefits by precursor pollutant, 

including the emission reductions and benefit-per-ton estimates using discount rates of 3% and 

7%. Table 4-3 provides a summary of the reductions in health incidences associated with these 

pollution reductions. Figure 4-1 provides a visual representation of the range of PM2.5-related 

benefits estimates using concentration-response functions from Krewski et al. (2009) and 

Lepeule et al. (2012) as well as the 12 functions supplied by experts. In Table 4-4, we provide 

the benefits using our anchor points of Krewski et al., and Lepeule et al., as well as the results 

from the 12 experts’ elicitation on PM mortality.
4-9

Table 4-2. Summary of Monetized PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2- Related Health CoBenefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$)a

Pollutant

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tons)

Benefit 

per ton 

(Krewski, 

3%)

Benefit 

per ton 

(LePeule, 

3%)

Benefit 

per ton 

(Krewski, 

7%)

Benefit 

per ton 

(LePeule, 

7%)

Total Monetized 

Benefits (millions 

2011$ at 3%)

Total Monetized 

Benefits (millions 

2011$ at 7%)

Proposed 

Standards

Direct PM2.5 170 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $45 to $100 $41 to $92

PM2.5 Precursors

SO2 173 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $7 to $16 $6 to $14

Total $52 to $120 $47 to $110

Alternate 

Standards

Direct PM2.5 242 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $64 to $145 $58 to $130

PM2.5 Precursors

SO2 337 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $14 to $31 $12 to $27 

Total $78 to $180 $70 to $160

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. It is important to 

note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from direct exposure to NO2, ozone 

exposure, ecosystem effects, or visibility impairment. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health 

effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 

levels, which drive population exposure. The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor 

emissions to ambient fine particles. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefitper-ton methodology.

Table 4-3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 and its Precursor 

SO2- Related Co-Benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018a

Avoided Premature Mortality Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

Krewski et al. (2009) (adult) 6 9

Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult) 13 20

Avoided Morbidity

Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) 3 5

Acute bronchitis (age 8–12) 9 14

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14) 120 170

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9–11) 170 250

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) 4,700 7,000

Lost work days (age 18–65) 780 1,200

Asthma exacerbation (age 6–18) 170 250

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) 2 2

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age > 18) 2 3

Non-Fatal Heart Attacks (age >18)

Peters et al. (2001) 6 9

Pooled estimate of 4 studies 1 1

a All estimates are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. Confidence intervals are unavailable for 

this analysis because of the benefit-per-ton methodology.
4-10

Figure 4-1. Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits of Proposed Brick and Structural Clay

Rule in 2018a

a This graph shows the estimated benefits at discount rates of 3% and 7% using effect coefficients derived from the 

Krewski et al. study and the Lepeule et al. study, as well as 12 effect coefficients derived from EPA’s expert 

elicitation on PM mortality. The results shown are not the direct results from the studies or expert elicitation; 

rather, the estimates are based in part on the concentration-response functions provided in those studies. 

Table 4-4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at 

Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)a

Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

3% 7% 3% 7%

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from 

Epidemiology Literature

Krewski et al. $52 $47 $78 $70 

Lepeule et al. $120 $110 $180 $160 

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from Expert 

Elicitation

Expert A $130 $120 $200 $180 

Expert B $110 $98 $160 $150 

Expert C $110 $96 $160 $140 

Expert D $75 $68 $110 $100 

Expert E $170 $160 $260 $230 

(continued)

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other expert Functions

Proposed Standards

3% 7%
4-11

Table 4-4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at 

Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)a (continued)

Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

3% 7% 3% 7%

Expert F $100 $91 $150 $140 

Expert G $63 $57 $94 $85 

Expert H $78 $71 $120 $100 

Expert I $110 $95 $160 $140 

Expert J $86 $78 $130 $120 

Expert K $13 $12 $19 $18 

Expert L $73 $66 $110 $98 

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. Estimates do not include confidence intervals because they 

were derived through the benefit-per-ton technique described above. The benefits estimates from the expert 

elicitation are provided as a reasonable characterization of the uncertainty in the mortality estimates associated 

with the concentration-response function. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the 

benefit-per-ton methodology. 

The specific control technologies for the proposed rule are anticipated to have minor 

secondary disbenefits, including an increase of 28 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), less than two 

tons of PM, three tons of carbon monoxide CO, and 82 tons of Sulfer dioxide (SO2) each year. 

Given the insignificant increase only secondary effects of PM and SO2 were included in the 

monetary evaluation of the actual benefits. 

4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits

In any complex analysis using estimated parameters and inputs from numerous models, 

there are likely to be many sources of uncertainty. This analysis is no exception. This analysis 

includes many data sources as inputs, including emission inventories, air quality data from 

models (with their associated parameters and inputs), population data, population estimates, 

health effect estimates from epidemiology studies, economic data for monetizing benefits, and 

assumptions regarding the future state of the world (i.e., regulations, technology, and human 

behavior). Each of these inputs may be uncertain and would affect the benefits estimate. When 

the uncertainties from each stage of the analysis are compounded, even small uncertainties can 

have large effects on the total quantified benefits. Therefore, the estimates of annual benefits 

should be viewed as representative of the magnitude of benefits expected, rather than the actual 

benefits that would occur every year.
4-12

This RIA does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM 

NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a) because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring 

data to run the benefits model. However, the results of the uncertainty analyses presented in the 

PM NAAQS RIA can provide some information regarding the uncertainty inherent in the 

benefits results presented in this analysis. Sensitivity analyses conducted for the PM NAAQS 

RIA indicate that alternate cessation lag assumptions could change the PM2.5-related mortality 

benefits discounted at 3% by between 10% and –27% and that alternate income growth 

adjustments could change the PM2.5-related mortality benefits by between 33% and −14%.

Unlike the PM NAAQS RIA, we do not have data on the specific location of the air 

quality changes associated with this rulemaking. As such, it is not feasible to estimate the 

proportion of benefits occurring in different locations, such as designated nonattainment areas. 

Instead, we applied benefit-per-ton estimates, which reflect specific geographic patterns of 

emissions reductions and specific air quality and benefits modeling assumptions. For example, 

these estimates do not reflect local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, 

baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors that might lead to an over-estimate or 

under-estimate of the actual benefits of controlling PM precursors. Use of these $/ton values to 

estimate benefits may lead to higher or lower benefit estimates than if benefits were calculated 

based on direct air quality modeling. Great care should be taken in applying these estimates to

emission reductions occurring in any specific location, as these are all based on national or broad 

regional emission reduction programs and therefore represent average benefits-per-ton over the 

entire United States. The benefits-per-ton for emission reductions in specific locations may be 

very different than the estimates presented here. To the extent that the geographic distributions of 

the emissions reductions for this rule are different than the modeled emissions, the benefits may 

be underestimated or overestimated. In general, there is inherently more uncertainty for new 

sources, which may not be included in the emissions inventory, than existing sources. For more 

information, see the TSD describing the calculation of these benefit-per-ton estimates (U.S. EPA, 

2013).

Our estimate of the total benefits is based on EPA’s interpretation of the best available 

scientific literature and methods and supported by the SAB-HES and the NAS (NRC, 2002). 

Below are key assumptions underlying the estimates for premature mortality which accounts for 

98% of the total monetized PM2.5 benefits: 

1. We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, 

because PM2.5 varies considerably in composition across sources, but the scientific 
4-13

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle 

type. The PM ISA concluded that “many constituents of PM2.5 can be linked with 

multiple health effects, and the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation 

of those constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific outcomes”

(U.S. EPA, 2009).

2. We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is log-linear without a 

threshold in this analysis. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing 

fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM2.5, including both areas that 

do not meet the fine particle standard and those areas that are in attainment, down to 

the lowest modeled concentrations. 

3. We assume that there is a “cessation” lag between the change in PM exposures and 

the total realization of changes in mortality effects. Specifically, we assume that some 

of the incidences of premature mortality related to PM2.5 exposures occur in a 

distributed fashion over the 20 years following exposure based on the advice of the 

SAB-HES (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2004c), which affects the valuation of mortality benefits 

at different discount rates.

In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from 

simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in 

the epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less confident 

in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the 

observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level 

[LML] or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data in the study) allow 

readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above 

different concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the 

estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular 

point at which our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less, and the 

scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the EPA does not view these 

concentration benchmarks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify 

health benefits of air quality improvements.14 Rather, the benefits estimates reported in this RIA 

are the best estimates because they reflect the full range of air quality concentrations associated 

with the emission reduction strategies and because the current body of scientific literature 

indicates that a no-threshold model provides the best estimate of PM-related long-term mortality. 

In other words, although we may have less confidence in the magnitude of the risk at 

 14For a summary of the scientific review statements regarding the lack of a threshold in the PM2.5-mortality 

relationship, see the Technical Support Document (TSD) entitled Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence 

of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-related Mortality (U.S. EPA, 2010b).
4-14

concentrations below these benchmarks, we still have high confidence that PM2.5 is causally 

associated with risk at those lower air quality concentrations.

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data is not available due to time or resource 

limitations. For these rules, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. However, we believe 

that it is still important to characterize the distribution of exposure to baseline air quality levels. 

As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population 

exposed at each PM2.5 level in the baseline of the source apportionment modeling used to 

calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. It is important to note that baseline 

exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates 

population, and change in air quality. In other words, the percentage of the population exposed to 

air pollution below the LML is not the same as the percentage of the population experiencing 

health impacts as a result of a specific emission reduction policy. The most important aspect, 

which we are unable to quantify for rules without rule-specific air quality modeling, is the shift 

in exposure associated with this specific rule. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting 

the LML assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results from rules 

that had air quality modeling. 

Table 4-5 provides the percentage of the population exposed above and below two 

concentration benchmarks (i.e., LML and 1 standard deviation below the mean) in the modeled 

baseline. Figure 4-2 shows a bar chart of the percentage of the population exposed to various air 

quality levels in the baseline, and Figure 4-3 shows a cumulative distribution function of the 

same data. Both figures identify the LML for each of the major cohort studies. 

Table 4-5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration 

Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studiesa

Epidemiology 

Study

Below 1 Std. Dev.

Below AQ Mean

At or Above 1 Std. 

Dev. Below AQ Mean Below LML At or Above 

LML

Krewski et al. (2009) 89% 11% 7% 93%

Lepeule et al. (2012) N/A N/A 23% 67%

a One standard deviation below the mean is equivalent to the middle of the range between the 10th and 25th

percentile. For Krewski, the LML is 5.8 μg/m3 and one standard deviation below the mean is 11.0 μg/m3

. For 

Lepeule et al., the LML is 8 μg/m3 and we do not have the data for one standard deviation below the mean. It is 

important to emphasize that although we have lower levels of confidence in levels below the LML for each study, 

the scientific evidence does not support the existence of a level below which health effects from exposure to 

PM2.5 do not occur.
4-15

Figure 4-2. Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline

Among the populations exposed to PM2.5 in the baseline:

93% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study

67% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study

4.2 Unquantified Benefits

The monetized benefits estimated in this RIA only reflect a subset of benefits attributable 

to the health effect reductions associated with ambient fine particles. Data, time, and resource 

limitations prevented EPA from quantifying the impacts to, or monetizing the benefits from 

several important benefit categories, including benefits associated with the potential exposure to 

HAP, ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment due to the absence of air quality modeling 

data for these pollutants in this analysis. This does not imply that there are no benefits associated 

with these emission reductions. In this section, we provide a qualitative description of these 

benefits. Below is a detailed qualitative assessment of health benefits related to multiple HAPs 

that have been reduced among including HAPs metals (i.e. antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Percentage of Population Exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM2.5 Level (μg/m3)

 

LML of Lepeule et al. 

(2012) study

LML of Krewski et 

al. (2009) study
4-16

Figure 4-3. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 

Exposure in the Baseline

Among the populations exposed to PM2.5 in the baseline:

93% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study

67% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study

4.2.1 HAP Benefits

Even though emissions of air toxics from all sources in the U.S. declined by 

approximately 42% since 1990, the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 

predicts that most Americans are exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels that 

have the potential to cause adverse health effects (U.S. EPA, 2011c).15 The levels of air toxics to 

which people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of 

activities in which they engage. In order to identify and prioritize air toxics, emission source 

types and locations that are of greatest potential concern, U.S. EPA conducts the NATA.16 The 

 15The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 16The NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations that prevent its use as the sole basis for setting 

regulatory standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 2005 NATA website. Even so, this 

modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting 

regulatory priorities, and informing the decision making process. U.S. EPA.(2011). 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Cumulative percentage of population exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM2.5 Level (μg/m3)

 

LML of Krewski et 

al. (2009) study

LML of Lepeule et 

al. (2012) study
4-17

most recent NATA was conducted for calendar year 2005 and was released in March 2011. 

NATA includes four steps:

1. Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor 

sources

2. Estimating ambient and exposure concentrations of air toxics across the United States

3. Estimating population exposures across the United States

4. Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including 

both cancer and noncancer effects

Based on the 2005 NATA, EPA estimates that about 5% of census tracts nationwide have 

increased cancer risks greater than 100 in a million. The average national cancer risk is about 50 

in a million. Nationwide, the key pollutants that contribute most to the overall cancer risks are 

formaldehyde and benzene.17 Secondary formation (e.g., formaldehyde forming from other 

emitted pollutants) was the largest contributor to cancer risks, while stationary, mobile and 

background sources contribute almost equal portions of the remaining cancer risk.

Noncancer health effects can result from chronic,18 subchronic,19 or acute20 inhalation 

exposures to air toxics, and include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory 

effects as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. According to the 2005 

NATA, about three-fourths of the U.S. population was exposed to an average chronic 

concentration of air toxics that has the potential for adverse noncancer respiratory health effects.

Results from the 2005 NATA indicate that acrolein is the primary driver for noncancer 

respiratory risk. 

Figures 4-4 and 4-5 depict the estimated census tract-level carcinogenic risk and 

noncancer respiratory hazard from the assessment. It is important to note that large reductions in 

HAP emissions may not necessarily translate into significant reductions in health risk because 

 17Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including 

both quantitative (e.g., model-to-monitor ratios) and qualitative (e.g., quality of data, review of emission 

inventories) judgments can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page16.html. 18Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database 

(http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 

approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used 

laboratory animal species).

19Defined in the IRIS database as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 30 days, 

up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately 90 days in typically 

used laboratory animal species). 20Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less.
4-18

Figure 4-4. Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from 

outdoor sources (2005 NATA)

toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of concern. For 

example, acetaldehyde mass emissions are more than double acrolein emissions on a national 

basis, according to EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, the Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) for acrolein is considerably lower 

than that for acetaldehyde, suggesting that acrolein could be potentially more toxic than 

acetaldehyde. Thus, it is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass 

of the targeted emissions.

Due to methodology and time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we were 

unable to estimate the benefits associated with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced 

as a result of these rules. In a few previous analyses of the benefits of reductions in HAP, EPA 

has quantified the benefits of potential reductions in the incidences of cancer and non-cancer risk 

(e.g., U.S. EPA, 1995). In those analyses, EPA relied on unit risk factors (URF) developed 
4-19

Figure 4-5. Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP 

exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)

through risk assessment procedures.21 These URFs are designed to be conservative, and as such, 

are more likely to represent the high end of the distribution of risk rather than a best or most 

likely estimate of risk. As the purpose of a benefit analysis is to describe the benefits most likely

to occur from a reduction in pollution, use of high-end, conservative risk estimates would 

overestimate the benefits of the regulation. While we used high-end risk estimates in past 

analyses, advice from the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that we avoid 

using high-end estimates in benefit analyses (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2002). Since this time, EPA has 

continued to develop better methods for analyzing the benefits of reductions in HAP.

As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 

(U.S. EPA, 2011a), EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects associated with 

 21The unit risk factor is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the 

probability of contracting cancer from a 70-year lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m3 of 

a pollutant.
4-20

reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009). 

While reviewing the draft report, EPA’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 

concluded that “the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of 

reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to a lack of 

exposure-response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the 

difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and the challenges of tracking health 

progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods” (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2008).

In 2009, EPA convened a workshop to address the inherent complexities, limitations, and 

uncertainties in current methods to quantify the benefits of reducing HAP. Recommendations 

from this workshop included identifying research priorities, focusing on susceptible and 

vulnerable populations, and improving dose-response relationships (Gwinn et al., 2011). 

In summary, monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires 

several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to 

carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). 

Due to methodology and time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we did not attempt to 

monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we provide a 

qualitative analysis of the health effects associated with the HAP anticipated to be reduced by 

these rules. EPA remains committed to improving methods for estimating HAP benefits by 

continuing to explore additional concepts of benefits, including changes in the distribution of 

risk. 

Below we describe the health effects associated with the HAP that would be reduced by 

this rulemaking. 

4.2.1.1 Arsenic

Arsenic, a naturally occurring element, is found throughout the environment and is 

considered toxic through the oral, inhalation and dermal routes. Acute (short-term) high-level 

inhalation exposure to As dust or fumes has resulted in gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea, 

abdominal pain, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage); central and peripheral nervous system 

disorders have occurred in workers acutely exposed to inorganic As. Chronic (long-term) 

inhalation exposure to inorganic As in humans is associated with irritation of the skin and 

mucous membranes. Chronic inhalation can also lead to conjunctivitis, irritation of the throat and 
4-21

respiratory tract and perforation of the nasal septum.22 Chronic oral exposure has resulted in 

gastrointestinal effects, anemia, peripheral neuropathy, skin lesions, hyperpigmentation, and liver 

or kidney damage in humans. Inorganic As exposure in humans, by the inhalation route, has been 

shown to be strongly associated with lung cancer, while ingestion of inorganic As in humans has 

been linked to a form of skin cancer and also to bladder, liver, and lung cancer. EPA has 

classified inorganic As as a Group A, human carcinogen.23

4.2.1.2 Cadmium (Cd)24

Breathing air with lower levels of Cd over long periods of time (for years) results in a 

build-up of Cd in the kidney, and if sufficiently high, may result in kidney disease. Lung cancer 

has been found in some studies of workers exposed to Cd in the air and studies of rats that 

inhaled Cd. The U.S. DHHS has determined that Cd and Cd compounds are known human 

carcinogens. The IARC has determined that Cd is carcinogenic to humans. EPA has determined 

that Cd is a probable human carcinogen.

4.2.1.3 Chlorine (Cl2)

The acute (short term) toxic effects of Cl2 are primarily due to its corrosive properties.

Chlorine is a strong oxidant that upon contact with water moist tissue (e.g., eyes, skin, and upper 

respiratory tract) can produce major tissue damage.25 Chronic inhalation exposure to low 

concentrations of Cl2 (1 to 10 parts per million, ppm) may cause eye and nasal irritation, sore 

throat, and coughing. Chronic exposure to Cl2, usually in the workplace, has been reported to 

cause corrosion of the teeth. Inhalation of higher concentrations of Cl2 gas (greater than 15 ppm) 

can rapidly lead to respiratory distress with airway constriction and accumulation of fluid in the 

lungs (pulmonary edema). Exposed individuals may have immediate onset of rapid breathing, 

blue discoloration of the skin, wheezing, Rales or hemoptysis (coughing up blood or blood-stain 

 22Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Arsenic. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available on the Internet at < 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg168.html#bookmark02>

23U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Integrated Risk Information System 

File for Arsenic. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at: 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0278.htm. 24Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008. Public Health Statement for Cadmium. CAS# 

1306-19-0. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=46&tid=15>. 25Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Chlorine. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=198&tid=36.
4-22

sputum). Intoxication with high concentrations of Cl2 may induce lung collapse. Exposure to Cl2

can lead to reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), a chemical irritant-induced type of 

asthma. Dermal exposure to Cl2 may cause irritation, burns, inflammation and blisters. EPA has 

not classified Cl2 with respect to carcinogenicity.

4.2.1.4 Chromium (Cr)26

Chromium may be emitted in two forms, trivalent Cr (Cr+3) or hexavalent Cr (Cr+6).

The respiratory tract is the major target organ for Cr

+6 toxicity, for acute and chronic inhalation 

exposures. Shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing have been reported from acute exposure 

to Cr+6, while perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary 

function, pneumonia, and other respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposures.

Limited human studies suggest that Cr+6 inhalation exposure may be associated with 

complications during pregnancy and childbirth, but there are no supporting data from animal 

studies reporting reproductive effects from inhalation exposure to Cr+6. Human and animal 

studies have clearly established the carcinogenic potential of Cr+6 by the inhalation route, 

resulting in an increased risk of lung cancer. EPA has classified Cr+6 as a Group A, human 

carcinogen. Trivalent Cr is less toxic than Cr+6. The respiratory tract is also the major target 

organ for Cr+3 toxicity, similar to Cr+6. EPA has not classified Cr+3 with respect to 

carcinogenicity.

4.2.1.5 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

Hydrogen chloride is a corrosive gas that can cause irritation of the mucous membranes 

of the nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes throat irritation, and 

levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely tolerable for 1 hour.27 The greatest impact is on the upper 

respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can rapidly lead to swelling and spasm of the 

throat and suffocation. Most seriously exposed persons have immediate onset of rapid breathing, 

blue coloring of the skin, and narrowing of the bronchioles. Exposure to HCl can lead to RADS, 

a chemically- or irritant-induced type of asthma. Children may be more vulnerable to corrosive 

agents than adults because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also 

be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to 

 26U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Chromium VI. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 27Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen 

Chloride. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02.
4-23

evacuate an area promptly when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not been classified for 

carcinogenic effects.28

4.2.1.6 Hydrogen cyanide (HCN)29

Hydrogen cyanide is highly toxic by all routes of exposure and may cause abrupt onset of 

profound central nervous system, cardiovascular, and respiratory effects, leading to death within 

minutes. Exposure to lower concentrations of hydrogen cyanide may produce eye irritation, 

headache, confusion, nausea, and vomiting followed in some cases by coma and death. 

Hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant. By binding to mitochondrial cytochrome 

oxidase, it prevents the utilization of oxygen in cellular metabolism. The central nervous system 

and myocardium are particularly sensitive to the toxic effects of cyanide.

4.2.1.7 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)30

Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory 

damage in humans, including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term) oral 

exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may also 

be useful for the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride may cause 

dental fluorosis. One study reported menstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed to 

fluoride via inhalation. The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity.

4.2.1.8 Lead (Pb)31

The main target for Pb toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and children. Longterm exposure of adults to Pb at work has resulted in decreased performance in some tests that 

measure functions of the nervous system. Lead exposure may also cause weakness in fingers, 

wrists, or ankles. Lead exposure also causes small increases in blood pressure, particularly in 

middle-aged and older people. Lead exposure may also cause anemia.

 28U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Integrated Risk Information System File of Hydrogen 

Chloride. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This 

material is available electronically at .http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm.

29All health effects language for this section came from: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR). 2007. Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) (CAS#: 7782-50-5). Atlanta, 

GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/Mhmi/mmg8.html#bookmark02. 30U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated 

with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. EPA/600/8-89/002F. Environmental Criteria and Assessment 

Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 

1989. 31Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Public Health Statement for Lead. CAS#: 

7439-92-1. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on 

the Internet at < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/phs13.html>.
4-24

Children are more sensitive to the health effects of Pb than adults. No safe blood Pb level 

in children has been determined. At lower levels of exposure, Pb can affect a child’s mental and 

physical growth. Fetuses exposed to Pb in the womb may be born prematurely and have lower 

weights at birth. Exposure in the womb, in infancy, or in early childhood also may slow mental 

development and cause lower intelligence later in childhood. There is evidence that these effects 

may persist beyond childhood.

There are insufficient data from epidemiologic studies alone to conclude that Pb causes 

cancer (is carcinogenic) in humans. The DHHS has determined that Pb and Pb compounds are 

reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens based on limited evidence from studies in 

humans and sufficient evidence from animal studies, and the EPA has determined that Pb is a 

probable human carcinogen.

4.2.1.9 Manganese (Mn)32

Health effects in humans have been associated with both deficiencies and excess intakes 

of Mn. Chronic exposure to high levels of Mn by inhalation in humans results primarily in 

central nervous system effects. Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand coordination 

were affected in chronically-exposed workers. Manganism, characterized by feelings of 

weakness and lethargy, tremors, a masklike face, and psychological disturbances, may result 

from chronic exposure to higher levels. Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male 

workers afflicted with Manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. The EPA has classified Mn 

in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.

4.2.1.10 Mercury (Hg)

Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form, methylmercury 

(MeHg). Because Hg is a persistent pollutant, MeHg accumulates in the food chain, especially 

the tissue of fish. When people consume these fish, they consume MeHg. In 2000, the NAS 

Study was issued which provides a thorough review of the effects of MeHg on human health 

(NRC, 2000).

33 Many of the peer-reviewed articles cited in this section are publications 

originally cited in the MeHg Study. In addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to 

obtain other related and more recent publications to complement the material summarized by the 

NRC in 2000.

 32U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Manganese. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 33National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press.
4-25

In its review of the literature, the NAS found neurodevelopmental effects to be the most 

sensitive and best documented endpoints and appropriate for establishing an RfD (NRC, 2000); 

in particular NAS supported the use of results from neurobehavioral or neuropsychological tests. 

The NAS report noted that studies in animals reported sensory effects as well as effects on brain 

development and memory functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology studies. 

The NAS noted that their recommended endpoints for an RfD are associated with the ability of 

children to learn and to succeed in school. They concluded the following: “The population at 

highest risk is the children of women who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood during 

pregnancy. The committee concludes that the risk to that population is likely to be sufficient to 

result in an increase in the number of children who have to struggle to keep up in school.”

The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available up to 2000. Based on these 

and other studies, the NRC concluded that “Although the data base is not as extensive for 

cardiovascular effects as it is for other end points (i.e. neurologic effects) the cardiovascular 

system appears to be a target for MeHg toxicity in humans and animals.” The NRC also stated 

that “additional studies are needed to better characterize the effect of methylmercury exposure on 

blood pressure and cardiovascular function at various stages of life.”

Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 2000. The EPA did not to 

develop a quantitative dose-response assessment for cardiovascular effects associated with 

MeHg exposures, as there is no consensus among scientists on the dose-response functions for 

these effects. In addition, there is inconsistency among available studies as to the association 

between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular system effects. The pharmacokinetics of 

some of the exposure measures (such as toenail Hg levels) are not well understood. The studies 

have not yet received the review and scrutiny of the more well-established neurotoxicity data 

base. 

The Mercury Study34 noted that MeHg is not a potent mutagen but is capable of causing 

chromosomal damage in a number of experimental systems. The NAS concluded that evidence 

that human exposure to MeHg caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they note that some earlier 

studies showing chromosomal damage in lymphocytes may not have controlled sufficiently for 

potential confounders. One study of adults living in the Tapajós River region in Brazil (Amorim 

et al., 2000) reported a direct relationship between MeHg concentration in hair and DNA damage 

 34U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress, EPA–HQ–OAR–

2009–0234–3054. December. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/hg/report.htm>.
4-26

in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes35. Long-term MeHg exposures in this 

population were believed to occur through consumption of fish, suggesting that genotoxic effects 

(largely chromosomal aberrations) may result from dietary, chronic MeHg exposures similar to 

and above those seen in the Faroes and Seychelles populations.

Although exposure to some forms of Hg can result in a decrease in immune activity or an 

autoimmune response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited 

(NRC, 2000)36.

Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a “possible” human 

carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in IRIS (U.S. 

EPA, 2002) 37,38. The existing evidence supporting the possibility of carcinogenic effects in 

humans from low-dose chronic exposures is tenuous. Multiple human epidemiological studies 

have found no significant association between Hg exposure and overall cancer incidence, 

although a few studies have shown an association between Hg exposure and specific types of 

cancer incidence (e.g., acute leukemia and liver cancer) (NRC, 2000).

There is also some evidence of reproductive and renal toxicity in humans from MeHg 

exposure. However, overall, human data regarding reproductive, renal, and hematological 

toxicity from MeHg are very limited and are based on either studies of the two high-dose 

poisoning episodes in Iraq and Japan or animal data, rather than epidemiological studies of 

chronic exposures at the levels of interest in this analysis.

4.2.1.11 Nickel (Ni)39

Respiratory effects have been reported in humans from inhalation exposure to Ni. No 

information is available regarding the reproductive or developmental effects of Ni in humans, but 

 35Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Lucotte. 2000. 

Cytogenetic damage related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. 

Bras. Ciênc. 72(4): 497-507. 36Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA. 37U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 

Methylmercury. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. Available 

online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm 38International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of 

Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in the 

Glass Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H. Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene 

sulphonanilide. Br. J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303-308 (as cited in NRC 2000). 39 Nickel (IARC Summary & Evaluation , Volume 49, 1990), Please check if there are relevant to this 

sectorhttp://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol49/nickel.html
4-27

animal studies have reported such effects. Human and animal studies have reported an increased 

risk of lung and nasal cancers from exposure to Ni refinery dusts and nickel subsulfide. The EPA

has classified nickel subsulfide as a human carcinogen and nickel carbonyl as a probable human 

carcinogen40,41. The IARC has classified Ni compounds as carcinogenic to humans.

4.2.1.12 Selenium (Se)42

Acute exposure to elemental Se, hydrogen selenide, and selenium dioxide (SeO2) by 

inhalation results primarily in respiratory effects, such as irritation of the mucous membranes, 

pulmonary edema, severe bronchitis, and bronchial pneumonia. One Se compound, selenium 

sulfide, is carcinogenic in animals exposed orally. The EPA has classified elemental Se as a 

Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, and selenium sulfide as a Group B2, 

probable human carcinogen.

4.2.2 Additional SO2 Health Co-Benefits

In addition to being a precursor to PM2.5, SO2 emissions are also associated with a 

variety of adverse health effects associated with direct exposure. Unfortunately, we were unable 

to estimate the health co-benefits associated with reduced SO2 in this analysis because we do not 

have air quality modeling data available. Therefore, this analysis only quantifies and monetizes 

the PM2.5 co-benefits associated with the reductions in SO2 emissions. 

Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory 

studies, the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Sulfur —Health Criteria (SO2 ISA) 

concluded that there is a causal relationship between respiratory health effects and short-term 

exposure to SO2 (U.S. EPA, 2008a). The immediate effect of SO2 on the respiratory system in 

humans is bronchoconstriction. Asthmatics are more sensitive to the effects of SO2 likely 

resulting from preexisting inflammation associated with this disease. A clear concentrationresponse relationship has been demonstrated in laboratory studies following exposures to SO2 at 

concentrations between 20 and 100 ppb, both in terms of increasing severity of effect and 

percentage of asthmatics adversely affected. Based on our review of this information, we 

identified four short-term morbidity endpoints that the SO2 ISA identified as a “causal 

relationship”: asthma exacerbation, respiratory-related emergency department visits, and 

 40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Subsulfide. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Carbonyl. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Selenium and Compounds. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999.
4-28

respiratory-related hospitalizations. The differing evidence and associated strength of the 

evidence for these different effects is described in detail in the SO2 ISA. The SO2 ISA also 

concluded that the relationship between short-term SO2 exposure and premature mortality was 

“suggestive of a causal relationship” because it is difficult to attribute the mortality risk effects to 

SO2 alone. Although the SO2 ISA stated that studies are generally consistent in reporting a 

relationship between SO2 exposure and mortality, there was a lack of robustness of the observed 

associations to adjustment for pollutants. We did not quantify these co-benefits due to data 

constraints.

4.2.3 Visibility Impairment Co-Benefits

Reducing secondary formation of PM2.5 would improve levels visibility in the U.S. 

because suspended particles and gases degrade visibility by scattering and absorbing light (U.S. 

EPA, 2009). Fine particles with significant light-extinction efficiencies include sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil (Sisler, 1996). Visibility has direct significance to 

people’s enjoyment of daily activities and their overall sense of wellbeing. Good visibility 

increases the quality of life where individuals live and work, and where they engage in 

recreational activities. Particulate sulfate is the dominant source of regional haze in the eastern 

U.S. and particulate nitrate is an important contributor to light extinction in California and the 

upper Midwestern U.S., particularly during winter (U.S. EPA, 2009). Previous analyses (U.S. 

EPA, 2011a) show that visibility benefits can be a significant welfare benefit category. Without 

air quality modeling, we are not unable to estimate visibility related benefits, nor are we able to 

determine whether the emission reductions associated with this rule would be likely to have a 

significant impact on visibility in urban areas or Class I areas.

4.3 References

Abt Associates, Inc. 2012. BenMAP User’s Manual Appendices. Prepared for U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/models/BenMAPAppendicesOct2012.pdf>.

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “The influence of location, source, and emission 

type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.” Air 

Qual Atmos Health 2:169–176.

Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and C.M. Fulcher. 2012. “Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits 

of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the 

U.S.” Environment International 49 41–151. 

Gwinn, M.R., J. Craig, D.A. Axelrad, R. Cook, C. Dockins, N. Fann, R. Fegley, D.E. Guinnup, 

G. Helfand, B. Hubbell, S.L. Mazur, T. Palma, R.L. Smith, J. Vandenberg, and 
4-29

B. Sonawane. 2011. “Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air 

pollutants—summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations.” Environ Health 

Perspect. Jan; 119(1): p. 125-30.

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2009. Section 812 Prospective Study of the Benefits 

and Costs of the Clean Air Act: Air Toxics Case Study—Health Benefits of Benzene 

Reductions in Houston, 1990–2020. Final Report, July 14, 2009. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/dec09/812CAAA_Benzene_Houston_Final_Report_Jul

y_2009.pdf>.

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2006. Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Concentration-Response Relationship Between PM2.5 Exposure and Mortality. Prepared 

for: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_tsd_expert_interview_summari

es.pdf>.

Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi, Y, et al. 2009. Extended follow-up and 

spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution 

and mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA.

Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. “Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and 

Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.”

Environ Health Perspect. Jul;120(7):965-70. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air 

Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. 

Washington, DC. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.html.

Roman, Henry A., Katherine D. Walker, Tyra L. Walsh, Lisa Conner, Harvey M. Richmond, 

Bryan J. Hubbell, and Patrick L. Kinney. 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.” Environ. 

Sci. Technol., 42(7):2268-2274.

Sisler, J.F. 1996. Spatial and seasonal patterns and long-term variability of the composition of 

the haze in the United States: an analysis of data from the IMPROVE network. CIRA 

Report, ISSN 0737-5352-32, Colorado State University.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Petroleum Refinery NESHAP. Revised Draft for Promulgation. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=705>.
4-30

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available on the Internet 

at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/cover.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2002. 

Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Developing Best Estimates of Dose-Response Functions An SAB Workshop Report of an 

EPA/SAB Workshop (Final Report). EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001. January. Available 

on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/34355712EC011A358525719A0

05BF6F6/$File/ecwkshp02001%2Bappa-g.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 

Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC: 

U.S. EPA. February. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Sulfur Oxides—Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available at:

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008d. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur–Ecological Criteria National (Final Report). National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139. 

December. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment – RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Carbon Monoxide. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. EPA/600/R-09/019F. January. Available at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document: 

Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the ConcentrationResponse Function for PM2.5-related Mortality. Research Triangle Park, NC. June. 

Available on the Internet at <www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf>.
4-31

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions 

for Environmental Policy: A White Paper: SAB Review Draft. National Center for 

Environmental Economics December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0563-1.pdf/$file/EE-0563-1.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010e. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-10-001. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. December. Available on the Internet 

at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-

50.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. EPA-452/R-11-011. December. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011c. 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

March. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011d. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. February. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/boilersriafinal110221_psg.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012a. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. 

EPA-452/R-12-003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Petroleum Refineries New Source Performance Standards Ja. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. June. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/refineries_nsps_ja_final_ria.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. Technical Support Document: 

Estimating the Benefit per ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 17 sectors. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2008. 

Characterizing Uncertainty in Particulate Matter Benefits Using Expert Elicitation. 

EPA-COUNCIL-08-002. July. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/43B91173651AED9E85257487004EA6C

B/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-002-unsigned.pdf>.
4-32

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2000. An 

SAB Report on EPA’s White Paper Valuing the Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction.

EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013. July. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/41334524148BCCD6852571A70

0516498/$File/eeacf013.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2004c.

Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Response to Agency Request on 

Cessation Lag. EPA-COUNCIL-LTR-05-001. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/39F44B098DB49F3C85257170005293E0/

$File/council_ltr_05_001.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2008. 

Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990–2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-

001. July. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8

3/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-unsigned.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009b. 

Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External 

Review Draft, December 2008). EPA-COUNCIL-09-008. May. Available on the Internet 

at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-

unsigned.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009c. 

Review of Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Second External Review 

Draft, July 2009). EPA-CASAC-10-001. November. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/151B1F83B023145585257678006836B9/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-001-unsigned.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2010a. 

Review of EPA’s DRAFT Health Benefits of the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of 

the Clean Air Act. EPA-COUNCIL-10-001. June. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/9288428b8eeea4c885257242006935a3/59e0

6b6c5ca66597852575e7006c5d09!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.3#2.>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2011. 

Review of Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper 

(December 10, 2010). EPA-SAB-11-011 July. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/298E1F50F844BC23852578DC0059A616/$

File/EPA-SAB-11-011-unsigned.pdf>.
5-1

SECTION 5

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

EPA prepares an EIA to provide decision makers with a measure of the social costs of 

using resources to comply with a regulation (EPA, 2010). The social costs can then be compared

with estimated social benefits (as presented in Section 4). As noted in EPA’s (2010) Guidelines 

for Preparing Economic Analyses, several tools are available to estimate social costs and range

from simple direct compliance cost methods to the development of a more complex market

analysis that estimates market changes (e.g., price and consumption) and economic welfare

changes (e.g., changes in consumer and producer surplus).

The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) adopted a market-level 

analysis described in the Office’s resource manual (EPA, 1999a). The market approach uses a 

single-period static partial-equilibrium model to compare prepolicy market baselines with 

expected post policy outcomes in these markets. Key measures in this analysis include

■ market-level effects (market prices, changes in domestic production and

consumption, and international trade) and

■ social costs and their distribution between producers and consumers.

We also assessed the impacts on employment in the brick industry through a qualitative 

discussion and a quantitative analysis that is linked to the results of the market-level analysis. 

Finally, we assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of large and 

small ultimate parent companies that own affected BSCP facilities. To do this, we used a 

screening analysis required to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). 

5.1 Market Analysis

The partial-equilibrium analysis includes a market model that simulates how stakeholders 

(consumers and firms) might respond to the additional regulatory program costs. EPA used a 

perfectly competitive regional market model that accounts for the fact that brick shipments are 

not likely to be shipped long distances because of weight and transportation costs. In regional 

markets, it is more likely that only a few firms offer similar brick products and other market 

structures may be applicable (i.e., oligopoly). If market power exists, the use of a perfectly 

competitive model may understate the social costs of the proposed rule. Appendix A provides 

additional details about the economic model equations and parameters.
5-2

5.1.1 Market-Level Results

Market-level impacts include the price and production adjustments for bricks. As shown 

in Table 5-1, the average national price under the proposed standards increases by 1.4%, or $3.29 

per 1,000 SBE, while overall domestic production falls by 1.1%, or 38 million bricks per year. 

These values are lower than the alternate approach: the average national price increase for the 

alternate standards is 2.0% and brick U.S. brick production falls by about 55 million bricks.

Price increases are the highest in regions with high unit compliance costs. For example, 

the East North Central market price increase ($8.43 per 1,000 SBE) is associated with higher 

per-unit compliance costs ($18.72 per 1,000 SBE). Under the proposed standards, one region 

does not include any facilities with incremental compliance costs (New England). As a result, 

there are no market-level changes. For all of the census regions, the average regional price 

increases between 0% and 2.8%. Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 2.2% and

0 to 14 million bricks per year. Under the alternate standards, the average regional price 

increases between 0% and 3.9%. Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 3.1%, or 0 

to 21 million bricks per year.

5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates

Under the proposed standards, the economic model suggests that industries are able to 

pass on $11.4 million (2011$) of the rule’s costs to U.S. households in the form of higher prices 

(Table 5-1). Existing U.S. industries’ surplus falls by $9.1 million, and the total U.S. economic 

surplus loss is $20.6 million. Under the alternate standards, total U.S. economic surplus loss is 

$10 million higher ($30.5 million). Because higher brick prices reduce consumption, the 

estimated compliance costs are lower than the engineering cost estimate that does not account for 

price responses. However, the differences are very small (i.e., less than 0.01%). 

5.2 Employment Impacts of the Proposed Rule

Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on 

job creation and employment. According to the Executive Order, “our regulatory system must 

protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, 

innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science”

(Executive Order 13563, 2011). Although standard benefit-cost analyses have not typically 
5-3

Table 5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP 

Census Region

Incremental Unit 

Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE)

Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:

Absolute Percent Absolute Percent

Consumer 

Surplus

Producer 

Surplus

Total 

Surplus

Proposed Standards

New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Middle Atlantic $3.55 $1.36 0.4% −703 −0.3% −$0.3 −$0.2 −$0.5

East North Central $18.72 $8.43 2.8% −6,364 −2.2% −$2.4 −$1.9 −$4.3

West North Central $6.81 $3.79 1.4% −2,000 −1.1% −$0.7 −$0.6 −$1.2

South Atlantic $6.17 $3.15 1.4% −14,228 −1.1% −$4.1 −$3.3 −$7.4

East South Central $6.17 $3.43 1.8% −5,727 −1.5% −$1.3 −$1.1 −$2.4

West South Central $5.15 $2.86 1.2% −8,898 −1.0% −$2.5 −$2.0 −$4.6

Mountain $1.23 $0.34 0.1% −86 −0.1% $0.0 $0.0 −$0.1

Pacific $2.35 $1.11 0.2% −120 −0.2% −$0.1 −$0.1 −$0.1

U.S. Average/Total $6.55 $3.29 1.4% −38,126 −1.1% −$11.4 −$9.1 −$20.6

(continued)
5-4

Table 5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP (continued)

Census Region

Incremental Unit 

Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE)

Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:

Absolute Percent Absolute Percent

Consumer 

Surplus

Producer 

Surplus

Total 

Surplus

Alternate Standards

New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Middle Atlantic $5.39 $2.07 0.6% −1,068 −0.5% −$0.4 −$0.3 −$0.8

East North Central $26.19 $11.79 3.9% −8,901 −3.1% −$3.3 −$2.6 −$5.9

West North Central $10.54 $5.85 2.1% −3,093 −1.7% −$1.1 −$0.9 −$1.9

South Atlantic $8.99 $4.60 2.0% −20,743 −1.6% −$6.0 −$4.8 −$10.7

East South Central $9.13 $5.07 2.7% −8,473 −2.2% −$2.0 −$1.6 −$3.5

West South Central $7.44 $4.13 1.8% −12,854 −1.4% −$3.7 −$2.9 −$6.6

Mountain $6.05 $1.68 0.5% −424 −0.4% −$0.2 −$0.2 −$0.3

Pacific $11.02 $5.21 0.9% −563 −0.8% −$0.4 −$0.3 −$0.7

U.S. Average/Total $9.74 $4.90 2.0% −56,118 −1.6% −$17.0 −$13.5 −$30.5
5-5

included a separate analysis of regulation-induced employment impacts,43 during periods of 

sustained high unemployment, employment impacts are of particular concern and questions may 

arise about their existence and magnitude. This chapter provides a conceptual framework for 

considering the potential influence of environmental regulation on employment in the U.S. 

economy and discusses the limited empirical literature that is available. The chapter then 

discusses the potential employment impacts in the BSCP industry, as well as the environmental 

protection sector (e.g., for construction, manufacture, installation and operation of needed 

pollution control equipment). Section 5.2.1 describes the economic theory used for analyzing 

regulation-induced employment impacts, discussing how standard neoclassical theory alone does 

not point to a definitive net effect of regulation on labor demand for regulated firms. Section 

5.2.2 presents an overview of the peer-reviewed literature relevant to evaluating the effect of 

environmental regulation on employment. Section 5.2.3 discusses macroeconomic net 

employment effects. EPA is currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert 

panel on economy-wide impacts, including employment effects. Section 5.2.4 addresses the 

particular influence of this proposed rule on employment. Finally, Section 5.2.5 offers several 

conclusions.

5.2.1 Theory

The effects of environmental regulation on employment are difficult to disentangle from 

other economic changes and business decisions that affect employment, over time and across 

regions and industries. Labor markets respond to regulation in complex ways. That response 

depends on the elasticities of demand and supply for labor and the degree of labor market 

imperfections (e.g., wage stickiness, long-term unemployment). The unit of measurement (e.g., 

number of jobs, types of job hours worked, or earnings) may affect observability of that 

response. Net employment impacts are composed of a mix of potential declines and gains in 

different areas of the economy (i.e., the directly regulated sector, upstream and downstream 

sectors, and the pollution abatement sector) and over time. In light of these difficulties, economic

theory provides a constructive framework for approaching these assessments and for better 

understanding the inherent complexities in such assessments. In this section, we briefly describe 

theory relevant to the impact of regulation on labor demand at the regulated firm, in the regulated 

industry, and in the environmental protection sector and highlight the importance of considering 

potential effects of regulation on labor supply, a topic addressed further in a subsequent section. 

 43Labor expenses do, however, contribute toward total costs in EPA’s standard benefit-cost analyses.
5-6

Neoclassical microeconomic theory describes how profit-maximizing firms adjust their 

use of productive inputs in response to changes in their economic conditions.44 In this 

framework, labor is one of many inputs to production, along with capital, energy, and materials. 

In competitive output markets, profit-maximizing firms take prices as given and choose 

quantities of inputs and outputs to maximize profit. Factor demand at the firm, then, is 

determined by input and output prices.45,46

Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) have specifically 

tailored one version of the standard neoclassical model to analyze how environmental regulations 

affect labor demand decisions.47 Environmental regulation is modeled as effectively requiring 

certain factors of production, such as pollution abatement capital investment, that would not be 

freely chosen by profit-maximizing/cost-minimizing firms. 

In Berman and Bui’s (2001, p. 274–75) theoretical model, the change in a firm’s labor 

demand arising from a change in regulation is decomposed into two main components: output 

and substitution effects.48 For the output effect, by affecting the marginal cost of production, 

regulation affects the profit-maximizing quantity of output. The output effect describes how, if 

labor intensity of production is held constant, a decrease in output generally leads to a decrease 

in labor demand. However, as noted by Berman and Bui, although it is often assumed that 

regulation increases marginal cost, and thereby reduces output, it need not be the case. A 

regulation could induce a firm to upgrade to less polluting and more efficient equipment that 

lowers marginal production costs, for example. In such a case, output could theoretically 

increase. 

The substitution effect describes how, holding output constant, regulation affects the 

labor intensity of production. Although increased environmental regulation generally results in 

higher utilization of production factors such as pollution control equipment and energy to operate 

that equipment, the resulting impact on labor demand is ambiguous. For example, equipment 

inspection requirements, specialized waste handling, or pollution technologies that alter the 

 44See Layard and Walters (1978), a standard microeconomic theory textbook, for a discussion. 45See Hamermesh (1993), Chapter 2, for a derivation of the firm’s labor demand function from cost-minimization. 46In this framework, labor demand is a function of quantity of output and prices (of both outputs and inputs). 47Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) used a cost-minimization framework, which is a 

special case of profit-maximization with fixed output quantities. 48The authors also discuss a third component, the impact of regulation on factor prices but conclude that this effect is 

unlikely to be important for large competitive factor markets, such as labor and capital. Morgenstern, Pizer, and 

Shih (2002) used a very similar model, but they break the employment effect into three parts: 1) the demand 

effect, 2) the cost effect, and 3) the factor-shift effect.
5-7

production process may affect the number of workers necessary to produce a unit of output.

Berman and Bui (2001) modeled the substitution effect as the effect of regulation on “quasifixed” pollution control equipment and expenditures that are required by the regulation and the 

corresponding change in labor intensity of production. Within the production theory framework, 

when levels of a given set of inputs are fixed by external constraints such as regulatory 

requirements, rather than allowing the firm to freely choose all inputs under cost-minimization 

alone, these inputs are described as “quasi-fixed.” For example, materials would be a “quasifixed” factor if there were specific requirements for landfill liner construction, but the footprint 

of the landfill was flexible. Brown and Christensen (1981) developed a partial static equilibrium 

model of production with quasi-fixed factors, which Berman and Bui (2001) extended to analyze 

environmental regulations with technology-based standards. 

In summary, because the output and substitution effects may be both positive, both 

negative, or some combination, standard neoclassical theory alone does not point to a definitive 

net effect of regulation on labor demand at regulated firms. Operating within the bounds of 

standard neoclassical theory, however, rough estimation of net employment effects is possible 

with empirical study, specific to the regulated firms, when data and methods of sufficient detail 

and quality are available. The available literature illustrates some of the difficulties for empirical 

estimation: studies sometimes rely on confidential plant-level employment data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau, possibly combined with pollution abatement expenditure data that are too dated 

to be reliably informative. In addition, the most commonly used empirical methods in the 

literature do not permit the estimation of net effects. These studies will be discussed at greater 

length later in this chapter. 

The above describes a conceptual framework for analyzing potential employment effects 

at a particular firm within a regulated industry. It is important to emphasize that employment 

impacts at a particular firm will not necessarily represent impacts for the overall industry; 

therefore, the theoretic approach requires some adjustment when applied at the industry level.

As stated, the responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on how the output and 

substitution effects interact. 49 At the industry level, labor demand will be more responsive when 

(1) the price elasticity of demand for the product is high, (2) other factors of production can be 

easily substituted for labor, (3) the supply of other factors is highly elastic, or (4) labor costs are 

a large share of the total costs of production.50 So, for example, if all firms in the industry are 

 49On Marshall’s laws of derived demand, see Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), Chapter 4. 50See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), p. 108. 
5-8

faced with the same compliance costs of regulation and product demand is inelastic, then 

industry output may not change much at all, and output of individual firms may only be slightly 

changed.51 In this case, the output effect may be small, while the substitution effect will still 

depend on the degree of substitutability or complementarity between factors of production. 

Continuing the example, if new pollution control equipment requires labor to install and operate, 

labor is more of a complement than a substitute. In this case, the substitution effect may be 

positive, and if the output effect is small or zero, the total effect may then be positive. As with 

the potential effects for an individual firm, theory alone is unable to determine the sign or 

magnitude of industry-level regulatory effects on labor. Determining these signs and magnitudes 

requires additional sector-specific empirical study. To conduct such targeted research would 

require estimates of product demand elasticity; production factor substitutability; supply 

elasticity of production factors; and the share of total costs contributed by wages, by industry, 

and perhaps even by facility. For environmental rules, many of these data items are not publicly 

available, would require significant time and resources to access confidential U.S. Census data 

for research, and also would not be necessary for other components of a typical RIA. 

In addition to changes to labor demand in the regulated industry, net employment impacts 

encompass changes within the environmental protection sector and, potentially, in other related 

sectors, as well. Environmental regulations often create increased demand for pollution control 

equipment and services needed for compliance. This increased demand may increase revenue 

and employment in the environmental protection industry. At the same time, the regulated 

industry is purchasing the equipment, and these costs may affect labor demand at regulated 

firms. Therefore, it is important to consider the net effect of compliance actions on employment 

across multiple sectors or industries.

On the one hand, if the U.S. economy is at full employment, even a large-scale

environmental regulation is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on aggregate net employment.52

Instead, labor would primarily be reallocated from one productive use to another (e.g., from 

producing electricity or steel to producing pollution abatement equipment). Theory supports the 

argument that, in the case of full employment, the net national employment effects from 

environmental regulation are likely to be small and transitory (e.g., as workers move from one 

 51This discussion draws from Berman and Bui (2001), p. 293. 52Full employment is a conceptual target for the economy where everyone who wants to work and is available to do 

so at prevailing wages is actively employed. 
5-9

job to another).

53 On the other hand, if the economy is operating at less than full employment,

economic theory does not clearly indicate the direction or magnitude of the net impact of 

environmental regulation on employment; it could cause either a short-run net increase or shortrun net decrease (Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011). An important fundamental research question 

is how to accommodate unemployment as a structural feature in economic models. This feature 

may be important in evaluating the impact of large-scale regulation on employment (Smith, 

2012). 

Affected sectors may experience transitory effects as workers change jobs. Some workers 

may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require time to search 

for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could bid up wages to attract workers. It 

is important to recognize that these adjustment costs can entail local labor disruptions, and 

although the net change in the national workforce is expected to be small, localized reductions in 

employment can still have negative impacts on individuals and communities just as localized 

increases can have positive impacts.

Although the current discussion focuses on labor demand effects, environmental 

regulation may also affect labor supply. In particular, pollution and other environmental risks 

may affect labor productivity54 or employees’ ability to work. Although there is an 

accompanying, and parallel, theoretical approach to examining impacts on labor supply, similar 

to labor demand, it is even more difficult and complex to study labor supply empirically. There is 

a small, nascent empirical literature using more detailed labor and environmental data and quasiexperimental techniques that is starting to find traction on this question. These are described in 

Section 5.2.6.

To summarize the discussion in this section, economic theory provides a framework for 

analyzing the impacts of environmental regulation on employment. The net employment effect 

incorporates expected employment changes (both positive and negative) in the regulated sector, 

the environmental protection sector, and other relevant sectors. Using economic theory, labor 

demand impacts for regulated firms, and also for the regulated industry, can be decomposed into 

output and substitution effects. With these potentially competing forces, under standard 

neoclassical theory estimation of net employment effects is possible with empirical study 

specific to the regulated firms and firms in the environmental protection sector and other relevant 

 53Arrow et al. (1996); see discussion on bottom of p. 8. In practice, distributional impacts on individual workers can 

be important, as discussed in later paragraphs of this section. 54For example, Graff Zivin and Neidell (2012).
5-10

sectors when data and methods of sufficient detail and quality are available. Finally, economic 

theory suggests that labor supply effects are also possible. In the next section, we discuss the 

available empirical literature.

5.2.2 Current State of Knowledge Based on the Peer-Reviewed Literature

In the labor economics literature, an extensive body of peer-reviewed empirical work

analyzes various aspects of labor demand, relying on the above theoretical framework.55 This 

work focuses primarily on the effects of employment policies, for example, labor taxes and 

minimum wage.56 In contrast, the peer-reviewed empirical literature specifically estimating 

employment effects of environmental regulations is very limited. In this section, we present an 

overview of the latter. As discussed in the preceding section on theory, determining the direction 

of employment effects in regulated industries is challenging because of the complexity of the 

output and substitution effects. Complying with a new or more stringent regulation may require 

additional inputs, including labor, and may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used 

by regulated firms (and firms in other relevant industries) in their production processes. 

Several empirical studies, including Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern et al.

(2002), suggest that net employment impacts may be zero or slightly positive but small even in 

the regulated sector. Other research suggests that more highly regulated counties may generate 

fewer jobs than less regulated ones (Greenstone, 2002; Walker, 2011). However, because these 

latter studies compare more regulated to less regulated counties, they overstate the net national 

impact of regulation to the extent that regulation causes plants to locate in one area of the 

country rather than another. List et al. (2003) found some evidence that this type of geographic 

relocation may be occurring. Overall, the peer-reviewed literature does not contain evidence that 

environmental regulation has a large impact on net employment (either negative or positive) in 

the long run across the whole economy. 

Environmental regulations seem likely to affect the environmental protection sector 

earlier than the regulated industry. Rules are usually announced well in advance of their effective 

dates and then typically provide a period of time for firms to invest in technologies and process 

changes to meet the new requirements. When a regulation is promulgated, the initial response of 

firms is often to order pollution control equipment and services to enable compliance when the 

regulation becomes effective. This can produce a short-term increase in labor demand for 

specialized workers within the environmental protection sector, particularly workers involved in 

 55Again, see Hamermesh (1993) for a detailed treatment. 56See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), Chapter 4: “Employment Effects: Empirical Estimates” for a concise overview.
5-11

the design, construction, testing, installation, and operation of the new pollution control 

equipment required by the regulation (see Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011; Bezdek, Wendling, 

and Diperna, 2008). Estimates of short-term increases in demand for specialized labor within the 

environmental protection sector have been prepared for several EPA regulations in the past, 

including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) (U.S. EPA, 2011b).

5.2.3 Regulated Sector

Determining the direction of net employment effects of regulation on industry is 

challenging. Two papers that present a formal theoretic model of the underlying profitmaximizing/cost-minimizing problem of the firm are Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, 

Pizer, and Shih (2002) mentioned above.

Berman and Bui (2001) developed an innovative approach to estimate the effect on 

employment of environmental regulations in California. Their model empirically examines how 

an increase in local air quality regulation affects manufacturing employment in the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which incorporates Los Angeles and its suburbs. 

During the time frame of their study, 1979 to 1992, the SCAQMD enacted some of the country’s 

most stringent air quality regulations. Using SCAQMD’s local air quality regulations, Berman 

and Bui identified the effect of environmental regulations on net employment in the regulated 

industries.57 In particular, they compared changes in employment in affected plants to those in 

other plants in the same 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) industries but in regions 

not subject to the local regulations.58 The authors found that “while regulations do impose large 

costs, they have a limited effect on employment” (Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269). Their 

conclusion is that local air quality regulation “probably increased labor demand slightly” but that 

“the employment effects of both compliance and increased stringency are fairly precisely 

estimated zeros, even when exit and dissuaded entry effects are included” (Berman and Bui, 

2001, p. 269).59 In their view, the limited effects likely arose because 1) the regulations applied 

disproportionately to capital-intensive plants with relatively little employment, 2) the plants sold 

to local markets where competitors were subject to the same regulations (so that sales were 

relatively unaffected), and 3) abatement inputs served as complements to employment.

 57Note, like Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002), this study does not estimate the number of jobs created in the 

environmental protection sector. 58Berman and Bui include over 40 4-digit SIC industries in their sample.

59Including the employment effect of exiting plants and plants dissuaded from opening will increase the estimated 

impact of regulation on employment. This employment effect is not included in Morgenstern et al. (2002) .
5-12

Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) developed a similar structural approach to Berman 

and Bui’s, but their empirical application used pollution abatement expenditures from 1979 to 

1991 at the plant level, including air, water, and solid waste, to estimate net employment effects 

in four highly regulated sectors (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining). Thus, in 

contrast to Berman and Bui (2001), this study identified employment effects by examining 

differences in abatement expenditures rather than geographical differences in stringency. They 

conclude that increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in net 

employment in those sectors.

5.2.4 Environmental Protection Sector

The long-term effects of a regulation on the environmental protection sector, which 

provides goods and services that help protect the environment to the regulated sector, are 

difficult to assess. Employment in the industry supplying pollution control equipment or services

is likely to increase with the increased demand from the regulated industry for increased 

pollution control.60

A report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (2013) shows that domestic 

environmental services revenues grew by 41% between 2000 and 2010. According to U.S. 

Department of Commerce (2010) data, by 2008, there were 119,000 environmental technology 

(ET) firms generating approximately $300 billion in revenues domestically, producing $43.8 

billion in exports, and supporting nearly 1.7 million jobs in the United States. Air pollution 

control accounted for 18% of the domestic ET market and 16% of exports. Small and mediumsize companies represent 99% of private ET firms, producing 20% of total revenue (OEEI, 

2010).

5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts

As described above, the small empirical literature on employment effects of 

environmental regulations focuses primarily on labor demand impacts. However, there is a 

nascent literature focusing on regulation-induced effects on labor supply, though this literature 

remains very limited because of empirical challenges. This new research uses innovative 

methods and new data and indicates that there may be observable impacts of environmental 

regulation on labor supply, even at pollution levels below mandated regulatory thresholds. Many 

researchers have found that work-loss days and sick days, as well as mortality, are reduced when 

air pollution is reduced (EPA, 2011a). EPA’s study of the benefits and costs of implementing the 

 60See Bezdek, Wendling, and Diperna (2008) , for example, and U.S. Department of Commerce (2010). 
5-13

clean air regulations used these studies to predict how increased labor availability would increase 

the labor supply and improve productivity and the economy (EPA, 2011a).Another literature 

estimates how worker productivity improves at the work site when pollution is reduced. Graff 

Zivin and Neidell (2013) reviewed this literature, focusing on how health and human capital may 

be affected by environmental quality, particularly air pollution. In previous research, Graff Zivin 

and Neidell (2012) used detailed worker-level productivity data from 2009 and 2010, paired with 

local ozone air quality monitoring data for one large California farm growing multiple crops,

with a piece-rate payment structure. Their quasi-experimental structure identified an effect of 

daily variation in monitored ozone levels on productivity. They found “that ozone levels well 

below federal air quality standards have a significant impact on productivity: a 10 parts per 

billion (ppb) decrease in ozone concentrations increases worker productivity by 5.5 percent.”

(Graff Zivin and Neidell, 2012, p. 3654). Such studies are a compelling start to exploring this 

new area of research, considering the benefits of improved air quality on productivity, alongside 

the existing literature exploring the labor demand effects of environmental regulations.

5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects

The preceding sections have outlined the challenges associated with estimating net 

employment effects in the regulated sector and in the environmental protection sector and labor 

supply impacts. These challenges make it very difficult to accurately produce net employment 

estimates for the whole economy that would appropriately capture the way in which costs, 

compliance spending, and environmental benefits propagate through the macro-economy. 

Quantitative estimates are further complicated by the fact that macroeconomic models often have 

very little sectoral detail and usually assume that the economy is at full employment. EPA is 

currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert panel on modeling 

economy-wide impacts, including employment effects. 

5.2.7 Information Specific to this Regulation 

In 2011, the ASM reported that 218 establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in 

NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a total annual payroll of about $300 million (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2013a, b). Approximately 12 million production labor hours were used to 

produce BSCP in 2011.

For this analysis, EPA quantified a subset of possible types of employment effects 

associated with the regulation:

■ additional labor requirements (full-time equivalents [FTEs]) associated with meeting 

the new regulation 
5-14

■ employment effect of facilities that may exit the BSCP industry 

As shown in Table 5-2, EPA estimates that the regulation will require an additional 

133,000 labor hours per year to operate control devices, or approximately a 1.1% increase. This 

is equivalent to about 64 additional FTEs. The total estimated cost of these additional labor 

requirements is $3.12 million per year.

Table 5-2. Estimated Additional Labor Requirements 

Total Annual Labor Cost ($ million)

Required to Operate Control Devices

Total Annual Labor Hours Required 

to Operate Control Devices

Proposed Standards $3.12 133,000

Alternate Standards $5.00 214,000

In Section 5.3, EPA estimates that the regulation may lead to one to two affected 

facilities exiting the BSCP industry. According the U.S. Census Bureau (2013b), the average 

number of employees per facility in 2011 was 37 (8,000/218 = 37). As a result, we estimate 37 to 

74 employees may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require 

time to search for new jobs.

5.2.8 Conclusion 

Although EPA has quantified two types of employment effects in this RIA, deriving 

estimates of how this regulation will affect net employment is a difficult task, requiring 

consideration of labor demand in both the regulated and environmental protection sectors. 

Economic theory predicts that the total effect of an environmental regulation on labor demand in

regulated sectors is not necessarily positive or negative. Peer-reviewed econometric studies that 

use a structural approach, applicable to overall net effects in the regulated sectors, converge on 

the finding that such effects, whether positive or negative, have been small and have not affected 

employment in the national economy in a significant way. Effects on labor demand in the 

environmental protection sector seem likely to be positive. Finally, new evidence suggests that 

environmental regulation may improve labor supply and productivity. 

5.3 Impacts on Small Entities

As mentioned above, EPA was particularly concerned about the proposed rule’s potential 

impacts to small entities, because 36 of 44 firms owning BSCP facilities have fewer than 750 

employees and thus meet the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) criterion for a small 

business in this industry. EPA thus conducted a screening analysis of the potential impacts by 
5-15

computing the ratio of control costs to firm sales revenues (i.e., a sales test). Based on the results 

of the screening analysis, EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the rule will not have a 

Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). As a result, EPA 

initiated a Small Business Advisory Review panel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA). 

5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis

As discussed in Section 2, EPA has identified 44 ultimate parent companies with 

facilities that will need new or modified control devices to meet new emission standards. 

Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing 

(NAICS 327120) industry and the SBA (2013) defines a small business as having fewer than 750 

employees. There are 36 parent companies that are small businesses.

EPA assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of ultimate 

parent companies by comparing pollution control costs to total sales (i.e., a “sales” test or costto-sales ratios [CSR]). To do this, we divided an ultimate parent company’s (i) total annualized 

compliance costs by its reported revenue:

Sales Testi = 

TTTTT AAAA AAAA C CC a C C i

TTTTT R R i

(5.1)

As shown in Table 5-3, 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies had sales data available 

that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. The table shows that 73% of all businesses and 75% of 

small businesses affected by the proposed standards have CSRs of under 1%. 

EPA estimated the range of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close 

rather than comply with the regulation. The lower and upper bounds of the range were 

determined as follows:

■ Lower bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.

■ Upper bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%, 50% of ultimate 

parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25% of ultimate parent 

companies with CSRs between 3% and 5%.

Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing 

facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards, two to six brick 

manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.
5-16

Table 5-3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates

Capital Cost 

(Million $)

Annual Cost 

(Million $)

Ultimate Parent Companies with Cost-to-Sales Ratios (CSRs)a

Estimatedb

Closures

Estimated 

Number of 

Facilities 

Closed

Less than 

1% 1% to 3% 3% to 5% 5% to 10%

Greater than 

10%

All Businesses (n=40) 

Proposed 

Standards

$58 $21 73% 15% 5% 5% 3% 3–6% 1–2

Alternate 

Standards

$94 $31 45% 25% 15% 10% 5% 5–14% 2–6

Small Businesses (n=32)

Proposed 

Standards

$11 $5 75% 16% 3% 3% 3% 3–5% 1–2

Alternate 

Standards

$34 $11 47% 22% 16% 9% 6% 6–15% 2–5

a The screening assessment was conducted for 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies with annual sales data available. For small businesses, 32 of the 36 small 

entities had annual sales data available.

b EPA estimated a lower and upper bound as follows: Lower bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.; Upper bound: All ultimate parent 

companies with CSR > 10%, 50% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 

3% and 5%.
5-17

As shown in Table 5-3, 32 of the 36 small ultimate parent companies had sales data 

available that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated 

that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the 

alternate standards, two to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of 

closure. All of the facilities at risk of closure were one facility companies.

EPA has been informed that firms may have difficulty obtaining longer-term financing 

needed to buy the control equipment and make process changes needed to comply with the 

proposed standards. Firms may not have cash on hand or the ability to convert assets into cash in 

order to make these purchases; as a result, firms would have to consider other long-term 

financing options. Affected firms are less likely to be publicly traded and thus would be more 

likely to consider debt versus equity options. The additional liabilities can put firms at additional 

risk of closure if market conditions do not improve during the period when the rule is adopted. 

In addition, if creditors are concerned about existing or future market conditions in the brick 

industry, they may be less willing to enter a loan contract or may require higher rates of interest 

than the 7 percent interest rate used to annualize the capital costs associated with the rule. EPA 

estimates of the range of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close rather than 

comply with the regulation may be an underestimate because of the difficulty in obtaining 

financing at a 7 percent interest rate. The estimates might be an overestimate if the industry has 

become more robust by 2018 when the control must be in place. The closure estimate did not 

include net effects on revenue due to price increases or reductions in sales attributable to the 

regulation.

5.3.2 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

An IRFA illustrates how EPA considers the proposed rule’s small entity effects before a 

rule is finalized and provides information about how the objectives of the rule were achieved 

while minimizing significant economic impacts on small entities. We provide a summary of 

IRFA elements; the preamble for this rule provides additional details.

5.3.2.1 Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency is Being Considered

On May 16, 2003, under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay 

products manufacturing and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for clay 

ceramics manufacturing. On March 13, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded both sets of standards. EPA is responding to the Court’s 

vacatur and remand.
5-18

5.3.2.2 Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis of Proposed Rule

The information for this IRFA elements is contained in the preamble to the proposed rule 

[Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291].

5.3.2.3 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities

Small entities that EPA anticipates being affected by the standards would include the 

types of manufacturers listed in Section 2 of this RIA. EPA estimates that 44 U.S. companies 

will be affected. EPA believes that approximately 36 of these companies meet the SBA smallentity definition of having fewer than 750 employees.

5.3.2.4 Description of the Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other Compliance 

requirements of the Proposed Rule

A discussion of the compliance requirements and costs is presented in Section 3 of this 

RIA.

5.3.2.5 Identification, to the extent practicable, of All Relevant Federal Rules Which May 

Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict with the Proposed Rule

EPA has determined there are no related federal rules for this source category.

5.3.2.6 Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

The information for this IRFA element is contained in Section 3 of this RIA and in the 

preamble to the proposed rule [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291].

EPA conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendation of representatives of the small 

entities that potentially would be subject to the requirements of the BSCP proposed rule. The 

results of this process are discussed in Report on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule “National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Maximum Achievable Control Technology for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing” completed on December 6, 2013. 

The SBAR made several recommendations to enhance flexibility for small businesses 

complying with the proposed rule. The EPA adopted the panel recommendations to the extent 

feasible, as described below:

■ The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices for dioxin and take 

comment on the feasibility of work practice standards for mercury and other metals. 

The discussion of work practices for mercury and other metals should clearly identify 

any areas where the agency believes that the data do not support work practices to 

allow for meaningful comments and also discuss work practice alternatives with 
5-19

sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as an alternative in the final 

rule.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practices for dioxin/furan. Although the 

EPA is proposing emission limits for mercury and for non-mercury metals, the EPA 

is specifically requesting comment in the proposal on the feasibility of work practice 

standards for non-mercury metals and for mercury, including data to support 

development of work practice standards for non-mercury metals and mercury in lieu 

of numerical emission limits.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA co-propose both a health-based limit and 

MACT limits for acid gases unless the EPA determines it lacks sufficient information 

to propose a numerical health-based limit.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing a health-based emission limit for acid gases in 

lieu of MACT limits.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate subcategories for kilns based 

on size if it reduces the financial impact and that the EPA should take comment and 

solicit data on subcategorization based on raw materials, fuels, and other factors.

Proposed rule: The EPA evaluated the data to determine if subcategories of sources 

were supported, including subcategories by kiln size. As a result, the EPA is 

proposing emission limits for mercury in two subcategories based on kiln size (large, 

small). However, although the EPA has the discretion to subcategorize by kiln size, 

the EPA determined it was not necessary to exercise this discretion for all pollutants, 

including total non-mercury HAP metals. Instead, the EPA is proposing a choice of 

emission limits for PM or total non-mercury metals for all tunnel kilns. The ability to 

comply with the equivalent lb/hr total non-mercury HAP metals limit provides 

additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content 

in the PM emissions.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA specifically request information, at proposal, 

on how the presence of sawdust dryers would affect emissions and control costs.

Proposed rule: The proposed rule requests comment on whether the EPA should 

create a subcategory for kilns fired with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

■ The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice standards for startup and 

shutdown.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown for tunnel kilns and is requesting comment on providing those work 

practice standards.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on 12 percent of the entire 

source category if the EPA can establish that the data available to the agency 

represent the best-performing sources consistent with section 112 of the CAA and 

relevant case law.

Proposed rule: The test data for PM (the surrogate for total non-mercury metals) 

showed that kilns controlled with a fabric filter-based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) 

are the better performers and at least 12 percent of the kilns in the industry are 
5-20

controlled with a fabric filter-based APCD. Therefore, the MACT limit is based on 

the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the best-performing sources with a 

fabric filter-based APCD). However, the EPA was unable to establish that the data 

available to the agency represented the best-performing sources for mercury control. 

Therefore, the MACT limit for mercury is based upon the top 12 percent of sources 

for which we had test data.

5.4 References 

Arrow, K.J. , M.L. Cropper, G.C. Eads, R.W. Hahn, L.B. Lave, R.G. Noll, P.R. Portney, M. 

Russell, R. Schmalensee, V.K. Smith, and R.N. Stavins. 1996. “Benefit-Cost Analysis in 

Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation - A Statement of Principles.” American 

Enterprise Institute, The Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future. AEI Press. 

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Benefit Cost Analysis in 

Environmental.AEI.1996.pdf. 

Berman, E., and L.T.M. Bui. 2001. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence 

from the South Coast Air Basin.” Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295. 

Bezdek, R.H., R.M. Wendling, and P. Diperna. 2008. “Environmental Protection, the Economy, 

and Jobs: National and Regional Analyses.” Journal of Environmental Management 

86(1): 63-79. 

Brown, R.S., and L.R. Christensen. 1981. “Estimating the Elasticities of Substitution in a Model 

of Partial Static equilibrium: An Application to U.S. Agriculture 1947 to 1974.” In

Berndt, E.R., Field, B.C. (Eds.), Modeling and Measuring Natural Resource Substitution.

Ehrenberg, R.G., and R.S. Smith. 2000. “Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy.”

Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Executive Order 13563. January 21, 2011. “Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review. Section 1. General Principles of Regulation.”

Federal Register 76(14): 3821-3823. 

Graff Zivin, J., and M. Neidell. 2012. “The Impact of Pollution on Worker Productivity.”

American Economic Review 102(7): 3652-73.

Graff Zivin, J., and M. Neidell. 2013. “Environment, Health, and Human Capital.” Journal of 

Economic Literature 1(3): 689-730.

Greenstone, M. 2002. “The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: 

Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of 

Manufactures.” Journal of Political Economy 110(6): 1175-1219.

Hamermesh, D.S. 1993. “Labor Demand.” Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 

Internal Revenue Service. SOI Tax Stats - Corporation Tax Statistics. Last updated April 2014. 

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Corporation-Tax-Statistics.

Layard, P.R.G., and A.A. Walters. 1978. “Microeconomic Theory.” McGraw-Hill, Inc. 
5-21

List, J.A., D.L. Millimet, P.G. Fredriksson, and W.W. McHone. 2003. “Effects of Environmental 

Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births: Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching 

Estimator.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 944-952.

Morgenstern, R.D., W.A. Pizer, and J-S. Shih. 2002. “Jobs Versus the Environment: An 

Industry-Level Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 

43(3): 412-436. 

Schmalansee, R., and R. Stavins. 2011. “A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis for the 

Transport Rule.” White Paper. Boston, MA: Exelon Corp. 

Smith, K. 2012. “Reflections – In Search of Crosswalks between Macroeconomics and 

Environmental Economics.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(2): 298-

317.

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. April 2010. “Environmental 

Industries Fact Sheet, using 2008 data from Environmental Business International, Inc.”

http://web.ita.doc.gov/ete/eteinfo.nsf/068f3801d047f26e85256883006ffa54/4878b7e2fc0

8ac6d85256883006c452c?OpenDocument. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2011a. “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air 

Act from 1990 to 2020 Final Report–Rev. A.” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport_rev_a.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2011b. “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf. 

U.S. International Trade Commission. March 2013. Environmental and Related Services. 

Publication No. 4389, Investigation No. 332-533. 

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4389.pdf.

Walker, R. 2011. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Reallocation.” American Economic 

Review: Papers and Proceedings 101(2).
6-1

SECTION 6

STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS

6.1 Synopsis

This chapter summarizes the Statutory and Executive Order (EO) impact analyses 

relevant for the proposed NESHAP for Bricks and Structural Clay Products. For each EO and 

Statutory requirement, we describe both the requirements and the way in which our analysis 

addresses these requirements.

6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory 

action.” The proposed rule qualifies as a “significant regulatory action” as defined by the 

Executive Order because it may “raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 

the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.”

Thus, EPA has conducted this Regulatory Impact Analysis to examine the costs, benefits, 

and estimated impacts of the proposed rule. EPA’s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities 

will incur total annualized costs of $21 million under the proposed rule, including costs of 

emissions controls, testing, and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for 

facilities that have testing and monitoring. Total annualized costs of the alternate approach are 

estimated to be $31 million. EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry 

profitability for firms owning affected BASCP facilities. EPA estimated that one to two BSCP 

manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the proposed standards. Under the 

alternate approach, EPA estimated that two to six BSCP manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure.

The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the proposed rule, as described 

in Section VII above. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing 

cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this 

rule. Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits 

from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 

450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of 

HAPs each year through the alternate standards, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as 

SO2, this rule would reduce several non-mercury HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each 
6-2

year. The EPA estimate the total monetized co-benefits to be $52 million to $120 million at a 3% 

discount rate and $47 million to $110 million at a 7% discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 

for the proposed standards. 

Based on the EPA’s examination of costs and benefits of the proposed BSCP NESHAP, 

the EPA believes that the benefits of the proposed rule will exceed the costs.

6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the BSCP proposed rule has been submitted 

for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The information collection request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2509.01. The information 

requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators 

subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 

specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the 

EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B.

In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions, the proposed rule includes paperwork requirements associated with initial 

and 5-year repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of performance test 

results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance and inspection of

process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of 

malfunction.

There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP. An estimated 25 of 

these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than 

comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 67 facilities are expected to be subject to the 

BSCP proposed rule. For these 67 facilities, the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden 

associated with the BSCP standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to be 15,063 labor hours per year, at a cost of $796,255/yr. No capital 

costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred 

during this period. The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $983/yr. The 

total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
6-3

the standards) is estimated to be 103 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $5,329 per year. (All 

costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Because BSCP facilities are not required to come into full compliance with the standards 

until 3 years after promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e.g., performance tests, 

inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance report, records of compliance data and 

malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation.

For the BSCP proposed rule, we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting 

burden of 31,805 labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also 

estimate annualized capital costs of $262,119/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of 

$350,075/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $612,194/yr. The average annual 

burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,953 hours per year, 

at a total labor cost of $207,946 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.)

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA’s) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the 

proposed BSCP NESHAP are small businesses that own BSCP manufacturing facilities. 

Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing 

(NAICS 327120) industry, and the SBA (2013) defines a small business in this industry as a firm 

with fewer than 750 employees. Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 
6-4

parent companies that are small businesses; of these, 32 have sales data. The EPA first conducted 

a screening assessment by computing the ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales 

(cost-to-sales ratio or CSR) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. 

Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that one to two small brick manufacturing 

facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards, two to five small brick 

manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the BSCP proposed rule on small entities along 

with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is described in Section 5, 

above, and is summarized below.

The IRFA describes the reason why the proposed rule is being considered and describes 

the objectives and legal basis of the proposed rule. The IRFA describes EPA’s examination of 

small entity effects prior to proposing a regulatory option and provides information about steps 

taken to minimize significant impacts on small entities while achieving the objectives of the rule. 

As described above, EPA is developing these standards in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit’s vacatur and remand of a BSCP NESHAP promulgated in 

2003. The objectives of this proposed rule are stated in the Preamble to the Proposed Rule. As 

described in Sections 2 and 5, EPA’s examination of data concerning the 44 owner companies 

owning affected BSCP facilities revealed that 36 of them meet the SBA small-entity definition of 

having fewer than 750 employees. 

The EPA summarized the regulatory requirements and cost sof the propose drule in 

Section 3 of this RIA, including the proposed standards and alternate standards. EPA’s analysis 

has determined that there are no related federal rules for this source category. Section 5 of this 

RIA describes the RFA/SBREFA analysis, the results of which are summarized above. 

As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted 

outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, to obtain 

advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be 

subject to the BSCP proposed rule’s requirements. Seventeen SERs associated with brick 

manufacturing participated. On June 26, 2013, the SBAR Panel held an outreach 

meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In addition to the materials that the SERs received for the 

pre-Panel outreach, the SERs were provided with background information to help them prepare 

for the teleconference and prepare their comments on the proposed rulemaking. Consistent with 

the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity 
6-5

comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in 

the docket for the BSCP proposed rule. (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291) The SBAR 

Panel made several recommendations to enhance flexibility for small businesses complying with 

the proposed rule. In response to each recommendation, EPA has developed the rule to accept 

the recommendation to the extent possible. Specific procedures incorporated into the proposed 

rule in response to the panel’s recommendations are presented in Section 5.

6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any 1 year. EPA estimates that the nationwide total annual cost of the proposed rule, including 

control, emissions testing, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs, will be $21 

million. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on any state, local, or tribal 

governments. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. It contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose 

obligations on them.

6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in EO 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned and operated by 

state governments, and, nothing in the proposed rule will supersede state regulations. Thus, EO

13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with EPA’s 

policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, 

6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or no the distribution of power 

and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in EO 13175.

The action imposes requirements on owners and operators of BSCP manufacturing facilities and 

not tribal governments.
6-6

6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 

and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 

the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 

because it is based solely on technology performance. Nevertheless, this action will result in 

reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans, and Hg and other metals, which will 

provide some increased protection of health for people of all ages including children.

6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule will not adversely directly affect productivity, 

competition, or prices in the energy sector. 

6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 

(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS.

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use the 

following four VCS as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this 

rule. ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981, Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” is acceptable as 

an alternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental 

procedures. ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test Method for Measurement of 

Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method,” 

is acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.
6-7

ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), “Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario 

Hydro Method),” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only).

ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), “Standard Test Method for Determination of 

Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 

Spectroscopy,” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following conditions: (1) 

the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-03, Sections A1 

through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), 

the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the 

test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and 

less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target 

compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for 

that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). 

The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements 

must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following 

equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R.

6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous

populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any minority, low-income, or indigenous population. This proposed 

rule establishes national standards that will result in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, CL2, 

dioxins/furans, and Hg and other metals to which all affected populations are exposed. Thus, the 

proposed rule is projected to have positive, not adverse, impacts on human health and the 

environment.
7-1

SECTION 7

COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

7.1 Introduction

The EPA compared the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity

and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 (Section 4) with the estimated 

annualized social costs (Section 5) and found that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the 

costs. The net benefits are likely higher since EPA was not able to monetize other environmental 

benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year and ecosystem effects 

and visibility impairment associated with PM emissions.

7.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards

Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the proposed 

standards to be $52 million to $120 million (Table 7-1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate 

the total monetized benefits to be $47 million to $110 million. The annualized costs are $21 

million at a 7% interest rate. The net benefits are $31 million to $99 million at a 3% discount rate 

for the benefits and $26 million to $89 billion at a 7% discount rate.

7.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards

Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the proposed 

standards to be $78 million to $180 million (Table 7-1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate 

the total monetized benefits to be $70 million to $160 million. The annualized costs are $31 

million at a 7% interest rate. The net benefits are $47 million to $149 million at a 3% discount 

rate for the benefits and $39 million to $129 billion at a 7% discount rate. 
7-2

Table 7-1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits (million 

2011$)

Total (3% Discount Rate) Total (7% Discount Rate)

Proposed Standards

Total Monetized Benefits $52 to $120 $47 to $110

Total Social Costsa $21

Net Benefits $31 to $99 $26 to $89

Alternate Standards

Total Monetized Benefits $78 to $180 $70 to $160

Total Social Costsa $31

Net Benefits $47 to $149 $39 to $129

a The methodology uses the estimate social costs from the baseline year of economic model. As a result, the same 

value of social costs is used for both discount rates.
A-1

APPENDIX A

ECONOMIC MODEL

A.1 Baseline Data for Economic Model

Table A-1. Affected Production Statistics by Census Region 

Census Region 1,000 S.B.E Shipped in 2010

Estimated Affected Production 

Share within Regiona

East North Central 285,508 81%

East South Central 388,685 100%

Mid-Atlantic 213,583 69%

Mountain 114,154 50%

New England 37,034 0%

Pacific 74,563 85%

South Atlantic 1,307,601 92%

West North Central 183,247 100%

West South Central 891,232 100%

United States 3,495,657 90%

a To approximate the affected shares, EPA estimated affected production from kiln capacity and operating hours of 

major sources.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations.

Table A-2. Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and Facing: 2010

Census Region

$ per 1,000 S.B.E.

Expressed in 2010 dollars

$ per 1,000 S.B.E.

Expressed in 2011 dollars

New England $379 $387

Middle Atlantic $324 $331

East North Central $297 $302

West North Central $272 $277

South Atlantic $227 $232

East South Central $183 $186

West South Central $225 $229

Mountain $355 $362

Pacific $541 $551

United States $248 $253

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. Prices adjusted using the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product 

(GDP). 
A-2

A.2 Model Equations

Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high relative to value. For this reason, 

bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of transportation 

across long distances. We found that international trade represented only a small fraction of 

economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of 

nonmetallic mineral products were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 2010).61 Approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are shipped in NAICS is 

less than 50 miles. A comparison of Census region average prices for bricks shows substantial 

differences between regions in the average price of brick products shipped. To the extent these 

price differences persist over time, these differences may be consistent with regional markets for 

brick. As a result, we use a perfectly competitive partial equilibrium model with nine regional 

brick markets (defined by census region). 

The market demand (D) in region (r) with regulation is:

QDD

′ = QDD × �1 + �

P′

− 1� × η� (A.1)

The affected market supply (SA) in region (r) with regulation is:

QS

′ = QS × �1 + �

�P′− �

− 1� × ε� (A.2)

The unaffected market supply (SU) in region (r) with regulation is:

QSS

′ = QSS × �1 + �

P′

− 1� × ε� (A.3)

At the new with-regulation market-clearing price, quantities in A.1, A.2, and A.3 satisfy 

the following market equilibrium condition for each region (r):

QDD

′ = QS

′ + QSS′ (A.3)

As reported in Section 2, a single parent company accounts for a majority of estimated 

census region production. As a result, the price-taking model of firm decisions may not describe 

business decisions as well as other economic models of pricing behavior (i.e., oligopoly). If 

 61The data include other products such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay 

products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.
A-3

market power exists, the use of a perfectly competitive model may understate the social costs of 

the proposed rule.

A.3 Model Parameters

A.3.1 Demand 

All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer brick and structural clay products 

when the price of the product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price 

response.62 Several factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If consumers 

can easily switch from one product to another because there are many close substitutes, demand 

tends to be more elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market definitions (king versus 

modular brick) and over longer time horizons for the consumption decision (months versus 

years).

Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities for brick and 

structural clay products. However, economy-wide simulation models have suggested the 

nonmetallic mineral industry demand elasticity is approximately −0.8. As are result, a 1% change 

in price results in a 0.8% decline in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008). 

Because the market definition for the product is broad, the price response for brick and structural 

clay products is likely more elastic than this value.

A.3.2 Supply 

All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the 

price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply measures how much the quantity of bricks 

supplied responds to changes in the brick price.63 If manufacturers have a significant amount of 

flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks 

is elastic. In contrast, if the quantity of brick produced and supplied only changes by small 

amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.

A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over 

which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, it is more difficult for the firm to 

adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors 

of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford (2002) developed an 

equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed 

 62The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in 

price. 63The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price.
A-4

factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two 

production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period64 and the other input that 

varies with production. 

Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × fixed factor value share

1− fixed factor value share

(A.4)

To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 50% to

approximately match the nonlabor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases 

where we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity 

is 1 (a Cobb-Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor 

prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shares. If we assume the elasticity of 

substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is

Supply Elasticity = 1 × 0.5

1 − 0.5 = 1 (A.5)

Using these values for the fixed factor’s value share and elasticity of substitution, the 

supply elasticity is approximately one. This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick 

manufacturers would plan to sell 1% more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity 

utilization rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value may underestimate how 

responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual 

supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. 

A.4 Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer 

Surplus 

In partial equilibrium analysis, the social costs are estimated by measuring the changes in 

consumer and producer surplus. These values can be approximated using the market supply and 

demand model (Figure A-1). 

 64The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include 

materials or labor.
A-5

Figure A-1. Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and 

Producer Surplus

Change in consumer surplus = – [fghd + dhc]

Change in producer surplus = [fghd – aehb] – bdc

Change in total surplus = consumer surplus + producer surplus = – [aehb + dhc + bdc]

The change in consumer surplus is measured as follows:

∆CS = – [∆Q1 × ∆p] + [0.5 × ∆Q × ∆p]. (A.6)

Higher market prices and lower quantities lead to consumer welfare losses.

For affected supply, the change in producer surplus is measured as follows:

∆PS = [Q1 × ∆p] – [Q1 × unit cost increase] – [0.5 × ∆Q × (∆p –unit cost increase)]. (A.7)

Higher unit costs and lower production level reduce producer surplus. The losses are 

offset to some degree because market prices tend to rise. In contrast, for unaffected supply, the 

change in producer surplus is:

∆PS = [Q0 × ∆p] + [0.5 × ∆Q × ∆p]. (A.8)

Higher prices increase producer surplus for unaffected producers in the U.S. and other 

countries. 

Q1 Q0

P1

P0

h

c

a

$

Output

e

d

S1 : With Regulation

S0 : Without Regulation Price

Increase }

Unit Cost Increase g }

f

b